Talk:Preterism/Archive 1

Ok anyone reading this feel free to comment. Its very challenging to accurately and precisely show the interrelationship of all these varieties of thought without getting completely bogged down with detail that would take it outside of the normal scope of an encyclopedia entry. I'm actually considering building an "Eschatological Flow Chart" with simple yes/no questions like "Are some End Time prophecies yet fufilled? Is the Millennium a literal 1000 years? Will the Church be on Earth during the reign of the Antichist?" etc that will allow non-Christians a quick and relatively painless way of identifying various eschatological schemes and graphically showing there relationships with one another. When I finish(and I estimate I'm 80% there) I'm going to contact some online Preterist clubs and ask them for input and/or corrections. Shalom. --MemoryHole.com

---

(though they do not believe in bodily resurrection)
I've researched preterism a little and I don't think this is a fair generalisation.

Shalom to you! mhjb at hotmail dot com

one must fairly represent mainstream belief

Hello I am a preterist. Of the historic kind. Unfortunately on the Internet the word has been usurped by a tiny but outrageously vocal minority that is ahistoric. While of course any articles must mention all views, but it must be factual and neutral/historical. preterims is a view with a long, long history in the church, and the faction that now is very vocal has departed from that history significantly and is heterodox with regards to the historic creeds of the Church. Though they claim to be conservative, inerrantist, ie fundamentalists, no major conservative denomination, group, or equivalent considers this a valid "Christian" eschatology though there is disagreement on whether its adherents can still be rightly called Christians. Even amongst those who would consider the "hyperpreterists" to be Christian, there is a HUGE majority that would say they are Christians with heretical eschatology. While an article need not take sides (previous versions of the preterism pieces were obviously written by and slanted for hyperpreterism), it should represent this very real dispute. It is dishonest not to do so. This is a young heterodox movement that goes against the historical use of the phrase. I edited the preterism pieces here (my first edit was just as bad as what I was railing against, so I read the Wikipedia guidelines and revised it to be neutral. The hyperpreterists may not like that they are controversial and widely regarded as heretics but not liking something does not make it not factual or even not neutral. for instance it would be in error not to mention that Mormons are not accepted as Christian by conservative groups. This is simply a fact. The Mormons may still be right but an Encyclopedia must report facts. The last preterism article stumped for hyperpreterism by stating that partial preterists believe such and such "which flies in the fact of the New Testament" - or something very similar. That is totally improper I see after reading the guidelines.

So I put in a more neutral article. If there is a disagreement on its neutrality rather than edit wars, we need to discuss. I believe it is fair, and any negativity to the hyperpreterists in it is simply a fact of history - it is a fact that their doctrine is widely denounced. I make no bones that I am very very vocal against the hyperpreterist, I am known for that, and that is my mission. However, I did take the effort to write a neutral piece (after initially writing a very biased piece).

Sincerely, Dee Dee Warren, proprietress of www.preteristlist.com

preteristlist@gamail.com

another change made

A change was made reinserting editorializing commentary not cast in a neutral voice tone and not fairly representing the opposition. Specially an editorializing piece was put in disparaging the Creeds and claiming that the opposition only relies upon the Creeds. This is not factually true. For instance I persoanlly have written a prominent piece on my position (www.tektonics.org/hythere.org) and do not mention the Creeds once. I am not the only one. Therefore, recognizing that the Creeds are a major issue despite my nonuse of them in my arguments, I edited the piece to keep the salient facts and removed the slanted editorializing. Further, the phrase "moderate preterism" is ahistorical and unnecessary. The view categorized bears the historical label of simply preterism. However, as a comprimise, I settled for the qualifier "orthodox preterism" but only do so in the spirit of comprimise as preterism alone and unadorned is the correct label for this view.

Sincerely Dee Dee Warren preteristlist@gmail.com

I can see that someone went and gutted the entire piece without bothering to read this discussion page nor to make an attempt at amicable resolution. Another Wiki member wrote me and we are working on hashing out an acceptable proposal. I reverted the article back and again suggest and encourage that edit-wars be avoided by fairly representing history and working together. This last change was simply a slanted hatchet job.

BTW - that last change that I reverted back to what is was before was utterly disrepectful to the purpose of the Wiki which is not to further our personal biased agendas but to accurately represent in a neutral voice, facts and not agendas. I would hope that folks would wait to see what me and the full preterist proponent who contacted me come up with before starting stupid edit wars.

stop the whining

As long as you continue to use the word "heretic" or "hymenaean" to describe Preterism, you'll have to stay up 24 hours a day to keep this up. Stop your whining and vicious attacks on Preterists and get your act together. If Preterists are your enemies, then treat us the way Jesus told you to treat your enemies. Get rid of your vicious attacks and descriptions and you'll have no edit war happening. Keep it up, and you have your work cut-out for you. Besides being disrespectful to Wiki, you are disrespectful to thousands of Christians world-wide. This is a place to DEFINE ideas and concepts, not to tell others that you believe Preterists are heretics.

Your Threat is Duly Noted and Reported

Your threat to continue to "vandalize" the Wiki by posting a complete propanganda piece even to the point of deleting relevant websites is duly noted. I will report your action. Plus as you can see, I can indeed keep up.

Now onto the very small portion of your rant that is relevant to a Wiki. It is a historical fact that full preterism is considered a heresy by many. You may not like that historical fact, but that is a fact nonetheless. Any piece on full preterism if it is to be complete and accurate will contain that fact. It is a fact that you think I am inconsistent etc. I may not like that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless - and any discussion of the various views must contain that fact whether I like it or not. It is a fact that your view is referred to quite regularly as Hymenaeanism. You may not like that fact, but the Wiki is to report facts, not to spin history. Rather than posting a complete propoganda piece you should suggest, as another full preterist has done in private communications with me, changes that are historical and reasonable. I am reverting this back until a reasonable comprimise may be worked out - you could have done that. You chose not to but rather to deface the Wiki. I am in fact in the process of doing so with that full preterist. Your games are completely out of place and out of the spirit of the Wiki which is not your propogranda ground. I am reporting facts - and if a more neutral voice if needed, then make reasonable suggestions rather than suppressing facts and spinning history. You are behaving no differently than a JW or a Mormon who resents the fact that there religion is considered by most to be a cult. That is a historical fact, and suppressing it is inappropriate for a Wiki.

I reported the vandalism

And I shall see what happens. In the meantime, a full preterist and I are working together on a historically accurate and mutually acceptable piece. The piece that I keep reverting is one that a full preterist contributed to and I kept the majority of his additions, as well as many comments from the original full preterist written piece. The one that the Anonymous Vandal is pushing is completely a one-sided written propaganda piece.

Dee Dee Warren

I am working on a revision to this piece with a full preterist

As I have said several times, a full preterist and I are working together on this piece over the next ten days or so. If those changes are not acceptable, then I will move forward with the Wiki's Conflict Resolution procedures - but this step needs to be tried first. This piece already up is where we are at with both sides contibuting content, not just one, and should remain up until another proposed resolution is hashed out. If that is not acceptable to the Anonymouse Editer, then I will take the next step.

Glad to see the Anonymous Editor changed one tactic

At least he stopped deleting the website references - the piece is still factually and historically inaccurate. The piece which had been up was already a joint effort between and orthodox and a full preterist with an additional joint modificaiton being hashed out over the next ten days. Neutral information does not mean that no negative information is not presented factually. The Anonymous Editor has not grasped that yet.

Sincerely, Dee Dee Warren

So that I am clear...

A another user wrote me with some proposed changes to my piece. This person is of an opposing view than me. This person thanked me for my changes so far in not trashing his work and says we are very close to having a piece that is fair to both sides, so I am actively pursuing a collabaration on this with someone of the opposite view. I am willing to work to get together a historically valid piece. True history unfortunaely may say some factual things that are not flattering to a view - it cannot be censored on that basis - I am attempting very much to adopt a neutral voice and factual stance.

Sincerely, Dee Dee Warren, proprietress of www.preteristlist.com

preteristlist@gamail.com

Anonymous 208.4.153.208 issuing threats

The anonymous 208.4.153.208 is now issuing threats. you are asking for legal trouble by continuing to allow the labeling of a large group of people as "heretics" - PRETERISM is a registered U.S. trademark and you continue to allow the mark to be denigrated and allow Dee Dee Warren to create business losses for our organization. Either put a stop to this negative attack on PRETERISM, or remove the definition completely from your website. I am tired of trying to negotiate with you guys and getting nowhere with you.

Any topic is open for reasonable NPoV articles on the Wikipedia. Microsoft is a registered trademark, and yet there is no problem discussing the negative aspects of their business practices in the Microsoft article. Stop issuing threats and start collaborating, if you want to have any hope of getting your point of view heard. Hu 19:41, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Using terms like "Orthodox" and "heretical" are inflammatory and denigrate those who are being described. They also imply that whoever is not an "orthodox preterist" is an UNorthodox preterist. The least you should do is demand removal of these terms by boths sides and put a stop to this nonsense.

(This was originally a post from 208.4.153.208. — Asbestos | Talk 22:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Edit war

It looks as though there is quite an edit war brewing here. I just want to remind everyone to keep it polite, work together on this and don't bite. I've added this article to my watch list and will protect if necessary. Remember the three revert rule (and especially that it's about to get teeth!). It's a lot better to work together and discuss changes than keep reverting. That's all my unsolicited advice for today. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted, but don't really wish to get involved in an edit war. I reverted because User 208.4.153.208 does not appear to be making good faith additions, or s/he would sign in, add a description to the edit-notes, and post comments in this talk page explaining the edits. Without doing these things, even good-faith editors are (unfortunately) indistinguishable from trolls.

But I did note that the user changed "Orthodox Preterism" to "Partial Preterism." While I know nothing about the subject, a search of Google revealed 2000+ results for the first, and 4000+ results for the second. It seems to me that this alternative name should at least be given notice. Even if one or the other of them is the official name, popular names are often at least as important. — Asbestos | Talk 22:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Using terms like "Orthodox" and "heretical" are inflammatory and denigrate those who are being described. They also imply that whoever is not an "orthodox preterist" is an UNorthodox preterist. The least you should do is demand removal of these terms by boths sides and put a stop to this nonsense.

(This was originally a post from 208.4.153.208. — Asbestos | Talk 22:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Dear anon (208.4.153.208), I would ask you not to vandalize this talk page by deleting other people's comments. I've reverted it, and posted your comments where they belong. Vandalizing people's comments will not make you many friends on this wiki. — Asbestos | Talk 22:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Asbestos, all the things you mention are also typical of people learning to use Wikipedia. 208... is new, but will soon learn our systems and conventions -- sannse (talk) 23:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's certainly true, Sannse. I apologize if I sounded too harsh - I was trying not to bite too hard, I promise!

But more seriously, the anon user appears to have been involved in this edit war for a fair amount of time (user's contributions) — I merely thought it time that s/he should learn to log in. — Asbestos | Talk 23:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The 208.4.153.208 has been editing Preterism since at least as early as Jan. 9. That hardly counds as "new". Hu 01:25, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

New is relative, sometimes people may be around a long time, but without exploring further than the obvious "edit" link. Newbieism is a state of mind ;) . But I do appreciate that you were not trying to bite. Thanks folks -- sannse (talk) 12:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unintentional

Removal of the previous comment was uninentional - I was looking for a "reply" link somewhere and removed the contents thinking it would save the previous posts. My apologies

We usually just add replies below the last comment. It's also useful if you sign your messages with: ~~~~. This adds your id and the date and helps keep the page easy to follow. You may also want to consider logging in. This would give you an easily accessible talk page for discussions not directly related to the article (and also has other advantages, both socially and practically). Keep talking -- sannse (talk) 23:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for being too quick in calling your mistake "vandalism." But do create an account and start logging in, or people will usually be more ready to view your edits as bad faith. — Asbestos | Talk 23:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

explanation and discussion

I took the above advise and added an explanation to Partial Preterism as that is indeed the more popular name. That is a reasonable comprimise. However in response to questions regarding orthodoxy and heresy - these are indeed factual issues within a faith system. The Christian faith has had a standard for orthodoxy for two millennia and even if political correctness doesn't favour that too much today, it is a historical fact. However, there is one sentence in there that says that full preterism is considered to be heretical by many.... etc. That is a factual and necessary statement to this piece. It does not as a piece condemn a view, it states a factual recitation that many do. That is neutral reporting. Also there is a "historical" Christain faith - in that paradigm it is unorthodox - that again is not saying that it is automatically wrong, it is stating a historical fact. I also included the historical facts that full preterists think that partial preterists elevate Creeds above Scripture. I obviously don't agree with that belief of full preterists, but I factually reported that belief becauese it is historically accurate. I understand an Anon is upset because there are some things believed about his position that are not flattering, but that is again historical fact, in fact a major historical fact. This is not some backwaters oscure issue but full preterists are struggling mightily nowadays to disprove the current status, thus the current status needs to be reported. That is neutral unbiased reporting. I am very concerned in this piece for accurate and full historical facts to be presented.

I found two statements of mine that could be "neutralized" even further which I took care of making clear that what was being reported was the position of some, and maintaining a neutral voice as to whether that belief was the correct one.

The first paragraph was changed in contradiction to history. Preterism is an ancient view in the Church, historically it has never meant that all prophecy is fulfilled. Such a view is historically new and historically outside the eucemenical confessions of Christianity. This is simply a historical fact. I see a change was done from "largely" to "some" - that is simply not accurate. Within conservative Christianity this is viewed as heretical by many if not most who are aware of the view - this is because heretical is stricly defined as falling outside the historic confessions of the Church, thus it is so by definiation. Even the nonChristians here reading this have heard ofthe Apostle's Creed wich is recited as a confession of faith amongst all conservative demonominations - this very Creed excludes this view. This is not meant as an unfair slam but an accurate portrayal of the current state of affairs. To object to this is to wish to be a revisionist of history.

Dee Dee Warren 23:08, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Your changes look fine. I took the liberty of simplifying the Orthodox sentence to simply "Partial Preterism (other known as "Orthodox Preterism" by many of its adherents)...", sinmply because the remainder wasn't really necessary (Partial Preterism is shown to be the common term simply by virtue of its being named first in the article).

As to anon's comment that the term "orthodox" is inflammatory, I'd protest that it is usually a pretty neutral term, if used as a standard title. What about the Orthodox Church?

— Asbestos | Talk 23:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

we keep passing in the ether

Abestos, I found a few more entries using "orthodox" that I changed to partial in the spirit of comprimise. Also you said "other known as orthodox preterism" that I changed to "otherwise known as" as the wise was omitted. FYI - another full preterist who contacted me has some suggested changes and would like to work with me over the next ten days who contacted me in the spirit of collaboration a few days ago. He however said what I had written was very "close" to being what he would agree to. I think perhaps some of the more neutralizing statements I made may be what he was alluding to.

Dee Dee Warren 23:30, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

As I said, I know nothing about the subject, but it looks to me like your edits are on the side of NPOV. Also, to be nitpicky, I added nothing to the article - merely removed the second half of the contents of a bracket (the "other" was already there) :). — Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

also vis a vis orthodox

Abestos, also there are just some things that are historical. For instance, let's say (and I am pulling an extreme example just to prove a point) that I was one of those folks that opposed inter-racial marriage (and I don't - this is just an example!) - and for some reason I don't believe that I am racist, I certainly cannot object to an informative article that reported that many in America view such ideas as racist. That is all I am doing with the heretical issue. It is a historical fact that many view this as heretical. I can direct you to many sources if you need me to back up this information. This can be reported without taking a position.

Dee Dee Warren 23:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I have absolutely no contention about whether or not many view this as heretical - have I made any comments to the contrary? Indeed, I would be very surprised if it were not viewed as heretical. — Asbestos | Talk 23:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't I was just being very thorough because I don't want to be misunderstood - while I personally think it is heretical, this is not my solitary "opinion" I am expressing here, though it is my opinon, it is a historical fact. I also tried very hard to present the views of the opposition that I disagree with.

Dee Dee Warren 23:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I put your comment up here. It's generally better to place replies in the same section within a talk.

User:AlexR has reverted the first sentence of Partial Preterism to "Partial preterism (also known as "orthodox preterism" by many of its adherents, though "partial preterism" is the more popular name) holds that...". While I have no real views either way, it seems that just keeping it as "(also known as "orthodox preterism" by many of its adherents)..." is more formal. The second half of the brackets seem unnecesary to me. — Asbestos | Talk 23:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the ins and outs of proper communication here, it is very appreciated as it is confusing for a newbie. I saw that change, and I agreed with you that your change sounded better so I changed it back - it was redundant. Also there was an inconsistent use of "ism" and "ist" and I changed those to be more uniform. I also removed another "orthodox" and changed it to "partial" in light of the collobarative compromise Dee Dee Warren 00:02, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I changed back your first change of Preterism to Preterists. I felt that the subject of the article was the belief, not the people. It could go either way though. If you want to change it back, however, do at least change the grammar - e.g. "pretorists hold," not "holds." — Asbestos | Talk 01:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also an FYI

It is no secret that I am a vocal opponent of full preterism. In fact my first revision ever at Wikipedia was a total hatchet job as a newbie not understanding the purpose. Once I understood I completely set aside that strong opinion and strove to write a factual piece - it is no secret that Anon (who I believe that I recognize after the lawsuit threat since that "trademark" is held by the owner of PlanetPreterist - I had been threatened with a lawsuit by them before for comments I made in a private email to them) is a vocal opponent of my view. Here is what is disturbing to me, this was posted at Anon's site today:

"That is why I encourage all of you to keep an eye on Wikipedia's definition of Preterism and if possible try to eliminate any partial preterist influences and mis-deeds occuring there. Let the edit wars begin!"

He is encouraging disruption and edit wars - and that partial preterist influences should be eliminated. This is highly inappropriate, and shows frankly in the attitude that has been posted. Why should partial preterist influence be eliminated? Is that factual? Do they wish only to have their side presented? How in the world is this good for Wiki? It is one thng to encourage one's voice to be heard, another to phrase it and encourage such outright disruption of another privately owned site in this manner.

Dee Dee Warren 23:44, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Nice Headings

BTW - the addition of the headings was a very good idea. It makes the piece easier to follow. BTW are italics allowed? How are they done? Dee Dee Warren 00:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Italics are done using single quotes - two for italics, three for bold. So ''this'' turns to this, and '''this''' turns to this.

A good resource (still refered to constantly by myself) is The wiki markup. — Asbestos | Talk 00:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many other issues to be resolved

First major issue is the definition of Preterism. If an admin would be kind enough and go to dictionary.com and look up the word "preterist", you will see that the definition is:

Dictionary Definition of Preterism

"One who believes the prophecies of the Apocalypse to have been already fulfilled"

OR

"a theologian who believes that the Scripture prophecies of the Apocalypse (as in the Book of Revelations) have already been fulfilled"

--Maybe I am mistaken here but are there not other prophecies outside of the Apocalypse?--

MY RESPONSE:

Yes. And that is part of the point. Farrar as far as I can see still confessed the future consummation. The admins here rightly noted that a dictionary definiton is way too limited. And the Wiki audience needs to know how the word is generally used - and it is generally used as a "system of interpretation" that can have varying degrees. I have been researching this more and more since this dispute, and may even change my own personal views on the exclusivity of this term for my own view (though the jury is out at this point). It is undeniable that it is used popularly to refer to both. In my further research of Alcazar, I have determined that he was referring to Revelation as the "Apocalypse" (that is the name for the book that he used) and also allows for the book to be referring to future struggles against paganism. It is interesting that the dictionary misquotes him as well - he does not say simply Revelation is already fulfilled, he says that preterists who came before him thought it was "mainly" fulfilled with varying degrees of modification. That fits right in with the definition used here on the Wiki. Webster got Farrar wrong - or as the admin said - there was not enough space in the dictionary to fully explicate this. Farrar calls Alcazar a preterist and recognizes that historically he is credited with being the first systematic preterist, and ironically Alcazar would agree with neither side in this issue! He was much more of what would be known today as a "mild" preterist. Yet he was a preterist. I have found this tangle here pretty interesting and it has motivated me to do further research to author a personal article on the subject. The fact is today that the word "preterist" unadorned, in popular usage, belongs in the public domain to no one. We may in our respective camps be advocates for change, but the state of affairs today is what it is. A dictionary doesn't change that.

Dee Dee Warren 12:45, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

The very definition out of a dictionary strikes at this argument against full preterism. In fact, it shows how this conversation is utterly useless. PRETERISM is the beliede that ALL Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled. This is not according to me, but according to the dictionary itself. It seems like Wikipedia wants to disagree. Thus, the very fist sentence in the article is innacurate. Preterism doesn't hold that MANY of the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled but rather that ALL prophecies have been fulfilled.

Furthermore, someone wrote: "However, there is one sentence in there that says that full preterism is considered to be heretical by many.... etc. That is a factual and necessary statement to this piece. It does not as a piece condemn a view, it states a factual recitation that many do."

In the same manner, partial preterism is viewed as heretical by the majority of the Church today. This is a fact. Either modify the article to say that BOTH full and partial preterism are viewed as heretical by futurists or get rid of the biased presentation. If you don't, you will still continue to disseminate misinformation.

Also, someone added "also known as "orthodox preterism" by many of its adherents" after the definition of Partial Preterism. I already pointed out the dictionary definition of Preterism. One is either a preterist or is NOT a preterist...you can't have it both ways, which is why the addition of the phrase above is misleading since most full-preterists believe themselves to be just "preterists", not to mention "orthodox preterists." It should only be fair to add the phrase "also known as PRETERISTS by many of its adherents" when defining Full Preterism. You either believe ALL prophecies have happened in the past or you don't!

There is absolutely no need to have a heading called "Views of Preterism within conservative Christian denominiations" - especially when the heading only deals with "why Full Preterism is heretical." This is pure propaganda and is the main reason we are having these ridiculous wars here.

I find ironic that you are allowing a vicious hater of full preterism to write this article. So much for the Wiki independence and fairness to all sides!

Another thing

I just noticed an earlier edit done by Dee Dee Warren which illustrates her bias when making changes here. She wrote "("all" is first paragraph is completely wrong, it has never been, and still is not historically orthodox to say so, make some tweaks, added another "partial")"

Again, I encourage everyone to check out the Dictionary Definition of Preterism. How can there even be a "spirit of Wikipedia" when you guys allow articles to be written and terms to be defined which directly contradict a simple dictionary??

Addressing posts above

And the person who authored that definition was Farrar who considered himself a preterist, and yet did not believe that ALL prophecy was fulfilled. How is that Farrar could consider himself a preterist if the definition is as the full preterists are insisting? He couldn't. Farrar also listed a group of men that he labeled as "preterists" and yet none of them believed that ALL prophecy was fullfiled. How can that be if the full preterist insistence is correct? It can't be. This is not honestly dealing with the definition.

Furthermore, Farrar's definition was written BEFORE there was any significant existence of "full preterists" and thus he was not facing that challenge when authoring that definition. By his application of that definition to himself, and others who would today be considered partial preterists, it is a historical fact that my definition is correct, otherwise it would have to be assumed that there were no preterists at all (and why would Farrar make a definition for a nonexistent group) prior to this recent full preterist movement, and that is untrue. Preterism goes back to the earliest church, and the Latin terminology for it predates the modern full preterism movement, so this is untrue. This term also predates Farrar and is applied in theological discourse to mean "partial preterist" - I can cite theological scholarly works that do just this - which are more authorative than a general dictionary definition (which still supports my position in historical context). These are very respected "four views" books in Christian theology that represent the "preterist" view and they are all partial preterists - how is it that they do that if the full preterist insistence is correct? Why is not the full preterist view EVER in any of these accepted works? Because it is NOT accepted as a valid eschatological view within mainstream Christianity.

I also cite the Nelson Publishing, a MAJOR Christian publisher, and publisher of the New King James Bible, which states on page 2195 in the Study Bible - "preterists view the book [Revelation] as referring almost exclusively to first century events." Which is more of an authority for a theological definition? Dictionary.com or numerous theologically specific works including one of the top Christian publishers? Unfortunately the Nelson Study Bible is not online so I cannot give a link - I would be more than happy to scan that page and upload it at my site for anyone to view or to mail a copy of the page. And Farrar as shown above is being misused for his definition is being yanked out of its historical context. This is historical revisionism folks.

This is reiterated by other Study Bibles and by the facts of history.

>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, someone wrote: "However, there is one sentence in there that says that full preterism is considered to be heretical by many.... etc. That is a factual and necessary statement to this piece. It does not as a piece condemn a view, it states a factual recitation that many do."

In the same manner, partial preterism is viewed as heretical by the majority of the Church today. >>>>>>

This is blatantly false. There have been no condemnations as heresy of this view by any number of major reputable scholars, nor has any demonination issed an anathema, which has happened with full preterism. Partial preterism denies none of the eucemenical confessions of the Church. Partial preterists do not spend their time trying to rewrite the Creeds. The full preterists by their own admission say they are starting a new Reformation as they are departing from the currently held standards.

>>>Also, someone added "also known as "orthodox preterism" by many of its adherents" after the definition of Partial Preterism. I already pointed out the dictionary definition of Preterism. One is either a preterist or is NOT a preterist...you can't have it both ways, which is why the addition of the phrase above is misleading since most full-preterists believe themselves to be just "preterists", not to mention "orthodox preterists." It should only be fair to add the phrase "also known as PRETERISTS by many of its adherents" when defining Full Preterism. You either believe ALL prophecies have happened in the past or you don't!>>>>

Addressed above. Though I would have no issue with the statement that full preterists believe they are the only true preterists etc added. That is a factual statement though then there is a corresponding factual statement that would need to be placed under partial preterism that will not be liked.

>>> There is absolutely no need to have a heading called "Views of Preterism within conservative Christian denominiations" - especially when the heading only deals with "why Full Preterism is here heretical." This is pure propaganda and is the main reason we are having these ridiculous wars here.>>>

This is a major issue within preterism. It is a factual recitation of the state of affairs. At least one demonination has issued offical anathemas, other churches and demoninations have expelled leadership. Whole sections of full preterists sites are dedicated to dealing with this charge. No well-known mainline scholar holds this view. No major conservative school teaches or accepts this view - major figures in contra-cult defense have labeled it heresy.

>> I find ironic that you are allowing a vicious hater of full preterism to write this article. So much for the Wiki independence and fairness to all sides!>>>

I am opposed to all heresies. You are a viscious hater of my view and the site that is promoting an edit war here has personally threatened to sue me before. That does not disqualify you from writing a NPOV piece. This is not the thought police. It is about what is put on paper. My first attempt at this was a biased hatchet job, and then I stepped back and wrote a NPOV which became even more NPOV with the assistance and revisions. My personal opinions are not the issue, what is the issue is what is put on the Wiki. Your personal opinions about my view and stand are not sugar, and spice either. That is not the issue. Turning this into a personal attack is nonproductive here.

Dee Dee Warren 01:37, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Let's redefine the dictionary

To the admins: I assume you guys have enough common sense to understand that Wikipedia should be defining "preterism" not for "preterists", but for those who don't know what Preterism is. The user above would have you believe that both definitions given by Webster's Dictionary and Princeton are invalid because she disagrees with them. Come on guys...let's be serious here and have a constructive discussion and update the article accordingly. People are not interested in someone's opinions...they are interested in facts. Stop this nonsense and define preterism accordingly. You have a partial-preterist monopolizing the definition of Preterism and redefining the term, a guy from Paris reverting my "an" to "a"...I thought a glass of red wine gives me enough of a buzz. Now it looks like picking on Wikipedia users could trump my red wine!

Another definition

Zondervan, another MAJOR Christian publisher in the NIV study Bible states:

Preterists understand the book [Revelation] exclusviely in terms of its first century setting, claiming that most of its events have already taken place.

So now two major publishers have given us definitions, and the facts of history bear this out. By full preterist insistence there were no preterists until their movement came into being, yet this word "preterist" predates them with Farrar himself being a preterist that did not believe that all was over. What Farrar was referring to that all these things had their application in the first century, ie the millenium began then etc. In light of his application of this definition to himself, unless we think he was so benighted that he confused himself so royally, we have to interpret his definition consistently with his application, and he applied to what today would be called partial preterists. Back then there was no need for "partial" to be added, that is the only kind of preterist that there was in any numbers.

Dee Dee Warren 02:13, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

addressing the last post

I gave my definition in light of the Dictionary.com definition which was authored by Farrar by looking at how Farrar defined it. He could not have been inventing a definition for a movement that didn't even exist in any substantial presence at the time he authored the definition. That is beyond credulity. Full preterism as a distinct movement began about thirty years ago. There were scattered works prior to that, but no significant movement or numbers. And this word predates even those scattered works, and predates Farrar. It is a Latin term that goes back to prior to the Reformation. Historical revisionism will not cut it.

It is a misrepresentation of what I have said here to say I dismissed the dictionary.com definition because I disagreed with it. In fact, in historical context it favour my position for Farrar gave us a true to life living defintion - himself. And he did not believe all prophecy was fulfilled. The full preterist has no rejoinder to this. Further, I note they are citing "Princeton" - It is nearly certain that Princeton's source is Farrar! Just because the same thing is repeated ten times doesn't make it ten sources. It is one source repeated ten times. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that they are advocating Princeton in that definition as the paragon of theological precision seeing how they spelled Revelation as Revelations.

I have given a well-reasoned unemotional argument for my position. It is supported by the brute facts of history, adn the contradictions created by the full preterist insistence are inreconcilable.

Dee Dee Warren 02:16, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Zondervan

As far as I know, Zondervan doesn't make dictionaries. What reference do you have for that quote? Who wrote it? When? Why don't we stick with Webster and Princeton, two independent sources which appear to both contradict you?

Full / Partial

It seems to me that this is a difficult issue to resolve, due to the lack of unbiased information available. I'd say that almost all citations I've seen on the web were written by preterists, whether "full" or "partial." If anyone can find unbiased information, it would probably help. (Sites with the word "pretorism" in the title would be out — anyone got a subscription to the OED?)

But it seems to me odd that "Partial Preterism" is above "Full Preterism" in the article. It seems to me that you need to define what something is before you can define what a "partial" something is. I would think it less POV to have sections that started something like:

"Full" Preterism

Preterism (sometimes refered to as "Full Preterism", to distinguish it from Partial Preterism below) is the belief that...

Partial Preterism

Partial Preterism (also known as "Orthodox Preterism") is generally considered to be a less [_] form of Full Preterism, in that...

As I've noted, however, I am completely ignorant of the subject, so apologies if I'm misrepresenting any views. — Asbestos | Talk 02:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abestos the reason the order is appropriate is because the "partial preterist" view is the historic view. Full preterism is a fairly new movement - and the word "partial" is a recent addition necessary by this recent movement, but the historical data I have given above shows that primacy of place in history is to the partial preterist view, which prior to the advent of full preterism was simply known as preterism because there was nothing else.

Dee Dee Warren 02:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

again addressing the prior post

Zondervan and Nelson provide theological reference works. Furthermore, the full preterist insistence is contradicted by Farrar himself, the author of the definition. I have explained this above, as well as the fact that the historical use of the word preexists any group believing all prophecy is fullfilled. This is logically impossible under the full preterist scheme and all that has been offered in response is argument by repititive reassertion.

The NIV defintion is credited to Robert Mounce and David O'Brown. Nelson doesn't divide up the section s but their list of contributors is extensive and is the who's who of Christian scholarship. The NT chief Editor was H. Wayne House.

Further the comment above doesn't understand the meaning of "independant."

clouding the issue

"It seems to me that this is a difficult issue to resolve, due to the lack of unbiased information available."

This is not a difficult issue at all to resolve - Dee Dee Warren is making difficult by contradicting reality. I presented TWO independent, non-christian, non-preterist sources which define Preterism as "all prophecies happened in the past." The very meaning of the word itself is the Latin for "past". Why would anyone argue against the dictionary and linguistic reality itself is beyond me.

Admins...are you paying attention to this? Would someone please modify the article with the correct definition of Preterism? Also, as a side-note, Partial-Preterism is a sub-set of Preterism, not vice-versa as this user would have you believe.

Again this is blatantly untrue on several levels. First the word existed prior to the advent of full preterism. So, we had a word that magically defined something that didn't even exist yet. Does that make sense to anyone? Further, Farrar is a Christian - this statement above is less than forthright. Just because a dictionary cites a Christian does not magically make the defintion from a nonChristian - further who says that a nonChristian source is the best source to define Christian theology? That is ludicrious and playing fast and loose with the facts here. The facts of history testify pretty clearly.

Dee Dee Warren 02:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

further

I futher cite a very well respected commentary on Revelation:

Revelation Four Views: edited by Steve Gregg:

In contrast, those who hold to the classical preterism of centuries past take a high view of the inspection of Scripture and date the Book of Revelation just prior to 70AD. They are capable of pointing out may details in Revelation that they beleive were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and some see in the later chapters the prediction of the fall of Rome and byond to the Second Coming of Christ. What I am representing as preterism in this volume is this theological conservative early-date preterism that has had worthy advocates for several centuries.

Note. Preteirsm has existed for centuries. Full preterism has not. By full preterist reasonikng we had a word that defined something that didn't even exist yet.

Dee Dee Warren 02:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Asbestos says "bingo!"

Asbestos, you nailed the issue right on the head. Since the very definition of Preterism is "all prophecies happened in the past", one should not define Partial Preterism first THEN Preterism based on the definition of Partial Preterism. In fact, the definition should be:

Preterism (also known as "Full Preterism") teaches that ALL prophecies happened in the first century A.D.

Partial Preterism (also known as "orthodox preterism") teaches that MOST prophecies happened in the first century A.D.

This settles the dispute quite easily and it meets the Webster and Princeton definition of Preterism.

That is question begging. That is not the historical definition otherwise again, sicne the word preexisted the modern full preterist movement, it was a word that traveled into the future, and then went back into the past to define something that did not exist yet. The word "partial" only became necessary in modern times, as "preterist" is what was formerly used for the lenghty lists of men who held to most being fulfilled. As to trying to take a wooden stance on the Latin, I once again refer to the fact that this Latin word preexisted full preterism. By this logic futurists cannot be futurists since they think some things are past. Words are never meant to be applied in this straightjacket approach. The historical revisionism is fairly obvious here.

Dee Dee Warren 02:48, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

and

And I note the opening line makes it clear that the preterism that is being defined is the HISTORICALLY ORTHODOX view. One cannot change that to "all prophecy" without totally misrepresenting history. Full preterism is neither historical, nor historically orthodox. Partial preterism existed long before full preterism - and was callaed preterism. I wonder how that could be? Didn't they realize that preterism only meant full preterism? Something not even yet a movement?

Dee Dee Warren 02:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

History is on my side

However, I have a proposal to avoid the war - change the opening paragraph as follows:

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology dealing with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days prophecies. Partial Preterism is a historically orthodox view that holds that "many" of the prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled in the first century. This view goes back in various degrees to the early Church Fathers. Full Preterism is a historically unorthodox view with regards to the historic eucenmical Creeds of the Church that hold that "all" prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. This view is relatively recent as an organized body of adherents. The name is derived from the term preterite, or past perfect tense. Adherents of these view are known as preterists (partial or full).

This way the definition is avoided and is actually more helpful to Wiki readers to understand what they will encounter - persons who have an issue with the past fulfillment of prophecy. I believe this is fair though I stand firm on my prior points, this is a comprimise position. Technical definitions are not always what is most helpful, what people want to know is what will they encounter.

Or alternatively -

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology dealing with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days prophecies in varying degrees. The two major camps are popularly known as Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. The name is derived from the term preterite, or past perfect tense. Adherents of these view are known as preterists (partial or full).

I would then revise the partial and full sections to deal the issues of historicity. I think that this second option is a reasonable comprimise.

Dee Dee Warren 02:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Not good enough

Your "proposal" is not good enough. You still have to explain why Princeton Universtity's definition of Preterism disagrees with yours. You also have to explain how Preterism is "new" when Eusebius who lived in the second century A.D. was a Preterist (full). The very idea that a Preterist is NOT automatically a "full" preterist is ludicrous to say the least. There is nothing to compromise here. I already showed all dictionaries to disagree with you, yet you continue on this path of self-rediscovery and linguistic manipulation.

Admins - I am asking you to again NOT listen to my opinion or anyone else's personal opinion. Rather look at Webster's Dictionary and Princeton Universtity's definitions of Preterism. This is quite a black and white issue and should not allow this user to continue on this path of incompetence.

MY RESPONSE:

All of my numerous posts above did exactly that. I showed historically how your reliance upon a definition by Farrar who himself was a preterist would exclude himself by being a preterist. You are practicing SEVERE further historical revisionism to call Eusebius a full preterist - furthermore you do not read carefully - I did not say that there would never be one person who might have held a doctrine - I said there were none in numbers to warrant a definition that was alreayd applied to numerous people who were not "full preterists." You have utterly failed to address one substantive point of mine.

My second proposal is more than fair - it is obvious that there is a dispute over the definition and I have produced support both theological and historical. It is apparent who is working in the spirit of colllaboration and who is simply wanting to forcefeed an agenda.

Dee Dee Warren 04:47, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

further

I stand on my position - I have more than proven my point. The proposal was done in the spirit of collaboration as urged by the comments.

I can battle it out, I am tough broad but this is not my property or yours to make a personal spitting pen - but to arrive where it is possible and what the average reader will find useful and necessary to have a good general background. Your definitions do not pass the logic or the gut test - my explanation do. While I think the case is very strongly mine, one thing is apparent, it is NOT a settled issue and thus the proposal wherein the issue is not made an issue is the best for actual resolution - that is assuming resolution is the goal.

Dee Dee Warren 04:50, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

To Anon

Another reminder here Anon - please sign your messages. If you don't want to use the autosign, then at least put a signature of some sort after your text (simply "--anon" would be sufficient). It is also not appropriate to call Dee Dee a "vicious hater.." or to make any other such personal attacks. Please keep it polite. I'd urge you to look again at Dee Dee's proposal, or come up with one of your own. It's important to accept that this article is not likely to ever be fully satisfactory to you, or anyone else with very strong views in this area. That's the nature of collaboration and compromise. Aim for an article you can live with, that your opponents can also live with, and that fully explains the issues to those like me without strong views either way. And of course that follows the policy of NPOV. By the way, you have mentioned a couple of times about admins overlooking this article - I am one (among other roles - see my user page) but that does not give me special rights over the article content. Admins have a very specific role here, which mostly means just allowing you all to get on with editing the article, although one of us will protect the article if necessary -- sannse (talk) 13:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vis a vis my proposal

As I feel strongly that my definition is correct the proposal is not fully satisfactory to me. It is made in the spirit of compromise. What is abundantly clear here is this: Anon has produced a definiton that he claims supports his position, I have challenged it in historical context, which has not be responded to in any depth. I have produced a definition by the two major Christian publishers, and Anon has given virtually no rebuttal except to say that why should we choose those over his? I can rejoin why should we choose his over those? It is abundantly clear here as far as Wiki's policies go that there is no bright line and that the only way that both views can be satisfactorily represented is to recognize the common denominator that runs through all the definitions proposed - and that is that preterism deals with the past fulfillment of prophecy to varying degrees. That does not violate any definition proposed. Then in the subsections devoted to the opposing views, it can be factually stated what each position is, even each position on the definition can be stated. This is very NPOV and in line with the spirit of Wiki.

Here again is my proposal

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology dealing with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days prophecies in varying degrees. The two major camps are popularly known as Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. The name is derived from the term preterite, or past perfect tense. Adherents of these view are known as preterists (partial or full).

I/we would then revise the partial and full sections to deal the issues of historicity, and we can include the "definiton" controversy as part ofthe factual statements of the positions of both sides.

This is a compromise. It is not what I would fully want, but I can live with it. I do not see, and none has been presented, why one could not. It is historicaly accurate,and accurately reflects that there is an issue with the definition to someone from a strict NPOV. To be faithful to the NPOV we state the facts later of the controversy if it is important for the readers to know. -- Dee Dee Warren (sig added by sannse)

This all sounds very good to me Dee Dee. Anon - I strongly urge to you accept this, or to explain fully what problems you have with it. In particular, Dee Dee has given alternative sources that indicate that the definition you supplied is not universal, and raised sensible questions about the validity or interpretation of the source you quote - so, perhaps you could agree that this needs to be explained in the article, and the alternative definitions included. -- sannse (talk) 14:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea that this will be solved through compromise. Anon, if you don't like the proposed solution, in addition to explaining what you dislike about, please post an alternative compromise. Arguing against something is no good unless you also argue for something. — Asbestos | Talk 15:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

so sorry about the sig

Oh so sorry for not adding my sig. I have gotten 90% better about that :)

Dee Dee Warren 16:06, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Moving Toward a Mutually Acceptable Definition

Just had to throw my two full preterist cents in ...

I want to acknowledge that Dee Dee has been really good at accepting constructive criticism from myself and Asbestos over the past several days. Dee Dee and I are currently discussing changes to this entry in order to make it acceptable to both full and partial preterists. As one of the Admin types noted, neither side may like everything that will be in there; however, I am convinced that the resultant entry will be sensitive to history and take a NPOV.

For those who keep reverting the definition to reflect either a partial or full preterist bias, please, STOP. Give Dee Dee, me, and others some time to work this out.

Have a great Thanksgiving!  :)

Mike Beidler 17:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello Mike ;)

Mike is the full preterist I mentioned that had contacted me privately to work through some things. Mike since this opening paragraph is such an issue, I would like to know your opinion on my proposal as just an short intro - or if you were thinking of something altogether different.

Mike has been a pleasure to speak with. He knows my strong position and I am aware of his, but we are both committed to putting aside our agendas and striving to historical accuracy and NPOV even if that means that some things may be posted that we disagree with (but are accurate factual recitations of the controversy) or that may paint our view in a light that we don't care for (but is a neutral factual recitation). That is my goal here - despite my strong editorializing at my personal site and on my personal time. Our personal sites and our personal time are the place for our strong editorializing - not the Wiki.

Dee Dee Warren 17:40, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I like Dee Dee's second alternative the best, as it avoids using the word "orthodox," which I believe to be extremely subjective (I believed this even when I was a dispensationalist). To claim orthodoxy requires adherence to the views of an authoritative body, which the Church has never possessed since the deaths of the Apostles. The only authority to which either side can truly appeal is the Bible. As I'm sure all sides will agree, history is simply history, and a majority view does not necessarily make that view the correct one. Thus, I appreciate Dee Dee's compromise and decision to use the popular term "partial preterism." This helps define the differences between partial and full preterism at the same time it disallows either side from claiming the single word "preterism" as their own ... despite the overwhelming desire for our respective positions to do so.

As I type, I am finishing up a draft entry to email to Dee Dee. Once I get her chop on the controversial matter, we'll continue to add and refine our respective positions as well as create a "prominent author" list.

Here is my proposed version of the opening paragraph:

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology that holds that most (if not all) of Biblical prophecy regarding the Last Days was fulfilled in the first century AD (see Luke 21:20). The name is derived from the Latin term præter, meaning "past." Adherents of this view are known as preterists.

Preterist eschatology, however, is not monolithic. There are two major schools of preterist thought: Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. These different schools of preterism have been described in various ways. Adherents of partial preterism call their own position orthodox preterism in an appeal to its majority status within preterist thought as well as its conformity to the ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church. Other labels for partial preterism include classical preterism and moderate preterism. Adherents of full preterism prefer either full preterism or consistent preterism in an appeal to its claim that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD.

Although I know that the partial preterists also appeal to Scripture in defense of their "orthodoxy" (as do we full preterists), that comes later in the discussion. I wanted to simply state facts in this paragraph and deal with interpretative matters later.

Mike Beidler 18:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC):

Mike, here are my initial thoughts - I may have some further thoughts but here is my first impression. I like my first sentence better (and Luke 21:20 needs to be removed as that is a full preterist proof text - not a general preterism proof text and thus does not belong in the introduction) - here is what I suggest initially.

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology dealing with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days prophecies in varying degrees. The name is derived from the term preterite, or past perfect tense. Adherents of these view are known as preterists (partial or full).

Preterist eschatology, however, is not monolithic. There are two major schools of preterist thought: Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. These different schools of preterism have been described in various ways. Adherents of Partial Preterism call their own position orthodox preterism to designate its conformity to the historic ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church contrary to Full Preterism. Other labels for Partial Preterism include classical preterism and moderate preterism. Adherents of full preterism prefer either full preterism or consistent preterism in an appeal to its claim that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD which they believe is inconsistently denied by Partial Preterists. There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, one of them being a variation of Partial Preterism which places fulfillment of some passagaes in the first three centuries encompassing the fall of Rome, and the other being a Preterism that denies the inspiration of the text in that while it agrees with the Full Preterists that all prophecy was predicted to be fulfilled within the first century, the Bible was simply wrong.

My are the reasons for my changes - I removed the sentence about appeal to majority status - while stating it is a majority view is favourable to me that just was not accurate, no orthodox preterist that I know of usng that designation because of a majority status, but really only as a reaction to keep from getting confused with full preterism. I know my change may not be favourable to full preterism, but is the fact of why the designation has been adopted. In fairness I added the sentence that full preterists prefer consistent preterims because they believe that partial preterists are inconsistent.

Also I think the two minor schools are important to mention briefly.

Also here is a question, but it might not be needed in a Wiki article, should we include the polemic designations? ie some full preterists call partial preterists, partial futurist, inconsistent preterists, and hypo-preterists while some partial preterists call full preterists, hyper preterist or hymenanean preterists? The fact is that this is a HOT controversy. If we don't communicate this in the article, I am not sure we are doing it a service. Your thoughts? I am amenable to either way.

Dee Dee Warren 20:23, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mike's Response

Dee Dee:

Regarding polemic labels, I had considered that and am still open to it. Just didn't want to cross that bridge quite yet. But now that you've brought me there ... I'd say that's a secondary issue that we can address once we've come to an agreement regarding the opening paragraph. I hate to have those labels mentioned, but I understand completely where you're coming from. I'll sleep on it.

DEE DEE TO MIKE:

Okay we can deal with it later - it seems like it really needs to be addressed at some point as it is really a major issue in the inter-relationship. You know that I personally, as well as some other orthodox preterists, in our writings only use the polemical labels, and there are full preterist counterparts who do likewise. So this is common enough that I think it needs to be addressed.

Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Re: the majority status statement ... I figured you might want to tweak that a bit. Your version is better. But change "contrary to Full Preterism" to read "in contrast to Full Preterism." (BTW, do we want to captialize the various positions, or keep them lower-case?)

DEE DEE TO MIKE:

See what I put below in the revised proposal. I think we should keep the designations consistently uppercase (but only in the "popular" titles, not in the alternate titles.... ie. Partial Preterism versus orthodox preterism and Full Preterism versus consistent preterism).

Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Change "first century AD which they believe is inconsistently denied by Partial Preterists" to "first century AD; as such, full preterists believe partial preterists are being inconsistent in their hermenuetic, i.e., their method of biblical interpretation."

DEE DEE TO MIKE:

Does the Wiki have an entry for hermenuetics? If so that could be a link. See what I propose below.

Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Change "There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, one of them being a variation of Partial Preterism which places fulfillment of some passagaes in the first three centuries encompassing the fall of Rome, and the other being a Preterism that denies the inspiration of the text in that while it agrees with the Full Preterists that all prophecy was predicted to be fulfilled within the first century, the Bible was simply wrong." to the following:

"There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, the first being a variation of partial preterism which places fulfillment of some passages in the first three centuries culminating in the fall of Rome. A second variation of preterism can be found in certain liberal schools of thought which hold that the the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation. However, these prophecies never came to pass, thus proving the non-inspiration of the text and the non-divinity of Jesus Christ."

DEE DEE TO MIKE:

No problem with that.

Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mike Beidler 21:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my next post I will post where we are at with my further suggestions in the proposal.

Dee Dee Warren 22:59, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

BTW Mike

I do take some disagreement with your comments vis a vis "orthodox" above, but I figure it is not important to pick issues with that at this point since we have agreed to a way to avoid that in the introduction. I just didn't want you to take my silence as agreement - it was an agreement not to pick an unnecessary dispute - I just wanted to be sure so that you knew where I was standing. We can certainly agree to let go by statements of one another that we don't agree with that don't affect the narrow paragraph and portion under discussion. I think that is part of what was going on with Anon in that the forest was being looked at, when we need to go one tree at a time.

Dee Dee Warren 20:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology dealing with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days prophecies in varying degrees. The name is derived from the term preterite, or past perfect tense. Adherents of these view are known as Preterists (Partial or Full).

Preterist eschatology, however, is not monolithic. There are two major schools of Preterist thought: Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. These different schools of Preterism have been described in various ways. Some adherents of Partial Preterism call their own position orthodox preterism to designate its conformity to the historic ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church in contrast to Full Preterism. Other labels for Partial Preterism include classical preterism and moderate preterism. Adherents of Full Preterism prefer either full preterism or consistent preterism in an appeal to its claim that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD; as such, full preterists believe partial preterists are being inconsistent in their method of biblical interpretation. There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, the first being a variation of partial preterism which places fulfillment of some passages in the first three centuries culminating in the fall of Rome. A second variation of preterism can be found in certain liberal schools of thought which hold that the the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation. However, these prophecies never came to pass, thus proving the non-inspiration of the text and the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

NOTES ON CHANGES:

I capitalized Preterism and the two schools throughout. I capitalized Creeds.

I added "some" to "adherents of Partial Preterism call their own position...." since not all of us do. I do, but I know some who don't, and probably wouldn't.

I took out "hermeneutic" as it seemed simpler and more streamlined just to keep "method of Biblical interpretation

Dee Dee Warren 23:11, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

FYI to readers

Mike sent to me his proposed version of the rest of the article. We are VERY close. He and I will over email hash out something that we will present here once an agreement is reached as a consensus at least as between us two.

Dee Dee Warren 23:15, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Heresy references

Please remove the reference to heresy. They serve no purpose to anyone, except those who want to throw defamation around. You do that and we'll be 99% there.

No I cannot agree to that

No I cannot agree to remove the reference to heresy because that is a factual statement, a very prominent factual statement in the issue today. Suppressing the facts serves no informational purpose. It is a fact that this view is viewed, not by just a few, but by many as heretical. A NPOV article states the factual issue but gives no opinion on it. This would be like suppressing that many conservative Christian thinks Mormonism is a cult. Of course a Mormon disagrees, but if there is an article presenting them as a Christian viewpoint, it is necessary to state that many deny that inclusion in Christianity. This is no periphal fact but a major, major controversy - large segments of full preterist sites are decicated to defending against this - many orthodox preterists such as myself dedicate a lot of effort to supporting it. In full preterist chat rooms it is a constant topic. In including the statement that some would view it as heresy and why, there will be a corresponding statement as to the defense of why it should not be. It is IMHO revisionist to not want to in an article in which is it admitted that a view denies tenets of the Creeds that have defined orthodoxy for two thousand years (whether or not you agree this is a proper standard) is considered to be heretical. Would you have such an objection if the article was about views on Christ and we were discussing Arianism? Would you object to saying that most Trinitarians consider Arianism to be heresy? I doubt it. You are letting your emotions rule the factual presentation, and that we cannot do. Encylopedias are to educate not to delete facts we don't like about what other people think. It can be worded in as neutral and factual way as possible, but that fact must be included - it is a MAJOR issue in the subject. Suppressing a major issue is inappropriate. This is a dispute in theology today, the charges and defenses must be factually listed - this would be like having an article on OJ Simpson but someone objecting the fact that he was on trial for murder be omitted because it only serves to inflame. No, it is a big factual issue in any presentation on OJ Simpson. It is no different here in analogical theory. The Creeds are not even ambivalent about this.

It is no small matter that your view denies two tenets of ALL historic eucemenical Creeds. To want to suppress that many obviously view this as heretical is innapropriate fact-spinning. Of course the full preterists may put in their counter to this belief, in fact it is necessary for a complete NPOV article that they do so, but fact suppression is not the answer. We can't suppress facts that we don't like - the truth is not served.

To use Hu's example from earlier - in an article about Microsoft, do we delete any negative beliefs about them if a Microsoft representative shows up and says he doesn't like it? No of course not - it is a big issue with Microsoft that frankly a lot of people don't like them - and that needs to be included whether Microsfot likes it or not. Our standard is not, does this upset me, or does this paint my view in a poor light, but is it factual and NPOV and necessary for a full orbed review of the situation.

The answer here is YES, YES, and YES

BTW - Mike in his first proposal emailed to me left in the reference to heresy - he obviously recognized it as a historical fact - he proposed some changes to the way it was worded, adn that is welcome, but a wholesale excision would be inappropriate to the spirit of truth and education.

Here is Mike's proposal so far on that particular issue:

Full preterism is viewed by many (but not all) partial preterists as heretical. Many of those who would condemn this view claim to do so not only upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), but also from biblical passages that they interpret to condemn a past view of the resurrection or the denial of a bodily resurrection, both of which most partial preterists believe to be an essential doctrine of the faith.

Adherents of full preterism, however, dispute this condemnation by claiming that any biblical condemnation of a past resurrection was written during a time in which the resurrection was yet future (i.e., pre-AD 70) as well as claiming different interpretations of other proffered biblical passages. Furthermore, full preterists reject the authority of the creeds to condemn their view, stating that the creeds were written by fallible men and are simply in error on this point. A rapidly growing movement, there has been a strong push by full preterists for acceptance as another valid Christian view; however, no major conservative denomination or group has officially accepted this view as normative.

That is very factual - and NPOV. From my perspective it is only because someone does not want it to be known that many people view this as heretical that there would be objection. Again, uncomfortable facts are still facts. So no, this cannot be removed. I am more than open to how we should word it to be accurate and far but the opinions and view of a large group of Christians should not be silenced just because some full preterists don't like it. This would be like me insisting that NO reference be given to full preterism at all because I don't like it.

There is no dispute over these facts (facts which no full preterist can believably deny)

Fact 1: There are many in Christianity who view full preterism as heretical, in fact there is a move to label it as a cult (and I refrained from including that)

Fact 2: Full preterism denies two tenets of the historic eucemenical Creeds, and thus by definition is heretical as regards the Creeds - of course I believe it is heretical with regards to the Scripture as well, but of course you would dispute that, but you cannot dispute it is strictly heretical with regards to the Creeds

Neither of those two facts are under dispute, and it is readily seen that it is important to the issue thus the opposition must clearly be represented. Why should the position of many Christians on this issue be silenced? and of course the opposition to this position should be given voice as well. This is fair, balanced, and actually factual, not a spin job.

Again we can work on how we are going to word it (and Mike a full preterist has given me a proposal that included it and has shown a great deal of historical dispassionate review whichis required) but deleting it is not the answer.

And I object highly to the characterization that it is just done to "defame" - that is a defamatory comment about intentions. Would Anon agree then with other religions that say Christians who believe that Jesus is the only way defame those of other faiths? They think that you know. Or how about the Christian belief that certain behaviours are sinful? There are many who think that Christians only do so to defame.

And warning - hot button topic - warning!

Suppose we had a Wiki article on Homosexuality and the Christian Church - there are Churches who support homosexuality as a valid expression of sexuality in the Church. Would it be defamatory to mention that many Christians disagree believing that the Bible teaches it is immoral? No! It would be a factual statement about a very true situation - ie some accept it, and others don't. It would not be accurate to exclude that fact just because the "pro" side doesn't like the word "immoral."

This is NPOV "reporting" - not an editorial.

I get in debates with Christian polygamists regularly. I think they are immoral. In an article about Christian polygamy would it be defamtory to say that many Christians would hold polygamy to be immoral? No!

In the same way...

Full preterism factually denies two major tenets of the Creeds. As such it is historically heretical, and many believe that.

It is no more defamatory than the above - and censoring views we do not like is not in the interest of the pursuit of information and facts.

Dee Dee Warren 01:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

a new edit done

It is also surprising or distressing when you see an edit done when such a heated discussion is ongoing like the one that was just done (by a new person, not anyone on this discussion). One change I have no issue with and the other I have issue with but I am not going to change it or worry about it as it will be discussed in the entire proposal - I object to "many" being changed to "some" - it is in fact "many"

I will refrain from changing it now but I really wish that party would have discussed it here first. It is so frustrating to see changes while a proposal is being hashed out.

Admins, I don't know if it is possible to "lock" the article for about a week to let us discuss it so that needless fire and confusion is not thrown in the middle of this. I am a newbie so I don't know if such a request is inappropriate.

Dee Dee Warren 03:39, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's easy not to notice that there is an active discussion on an article talk page - most people edit without looking at the talk page first, and only visit here when they realise there is a problem (this is generally just fine, in most cases there is no dispute anyway). I won't protect, that would be outside the accepted uses for page protection. But I have added a notice to the page to ask people to come here before making large edits. Hopefully that will help -- sannse (talk) 12:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Sannse - I think that will help, at least until Mike and I come up with the proposal - which may even be done this weekend. The ball is in my court with him as he sent me his proposal already. I hope to maybe even have a suggestion to him today - maybe not with the holiday it is family time and stuff.

Dee Dee Warren 14:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Re: No I cannot agree to that

If you can't agree to removal of heretical references, then you have to mention that BOTH partial and full preterism are considered heretical by the majority of the Church. As long as you continue to use the article to promote your personal vendetta against full preterists, I won't agree to any "proposal" you are making.

MY RESPONSE:

It is factually untrue that partial preterism is considered heretical by a majority of the Church, that is simply false. I am stating facts and you are making accusations of vendettas motivating factual reporting. It doesn't take even a Christian observer to see that a view that denies two tenets of the historic Creeds, ie the future Second Coming and the future bodily resurrection would be considered heretical by a majority of the Church. It also doesn't take a Christian to see that a view that has been held by some of the most respected commentators (I can provide a list, it is the who's who in historical commentators) in the history of Christianity and two prominent apologists with longterm nationwide radio programs is not considered heretical by a majority of the Church. That is simply false. I have given my rationale and supported it. You wish to have an untrue statement which is unacceptable.

The largest Christian discussion forum on the Net which has over 92,000 members even has a statement to this effect on their site, see http://www.christianforums.com/t38522-updated-rules-full-preterism-view-is-still-not-allowed.html

allowing partial preterists in the orthodox section but disallowing full preterists because they have "heretical doctrine" - here is a quote from that link regarding full preterism - "CF wishes to uphold Christianity in its most orthodox form, and will not tolerate the posting of what is considered heresy in the Christians-only forums."

Does that forum have a "vendetta" against full preterism? They allow partial preterists to post in Eschatology but not full preterists who must post in the section called "unorthodox theology" - this is a MAJOR Christian site - not just nationwide for America, but WORLDWIDE

No number AT ALL of prominent teachers or sites has condemned partial preterism as heresy. Many major teachers and sites have done so of full preterism. You are clearly not wanting something you just don't personally like to appear in an article, and that is not NPOV but furthering an agenda of silencing the view of many Christians. You can produce no evidence that there is any kind of equality at all in the way that full preterism is viewed as opposed to partial preterism. You are making emotional assertions that are not backed by evidence because the evidence doesn't exist. With any view there are always going to be a small fringe that says some other view is heresy - I can find those who say baby baptizers are hereticsk but this is nothing significant. In contrast full preterism has been called heresy by respected and prominent circles - one demonination even issued an official anathema. Here is the text of the anathema in support of my assertion:

"The Spiritual Council of Sacramento Covenant Reformed Church prepared an overture to the Western Classis, asking it to adopt and forward to the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States, the following:

Whereas,

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no physical Resurrection of the body, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that the Second Coming of our Lord is already past, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no future Great White Throne Judgment, and

Whereas, these views represent a satanic attack upon the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints,

Therefore, in the certain Hope of the Resurrection, the Reformed Church in the United States does hereby find the Hymenaean heresy to be contrary to orthodoxy, and its adherents to be preachers of a false gospel. Let these enemies of Christ and His Kingdom be anathema maranatha.

We further urge the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States to broadly communicate the action taken this day to those of like precious faith, that the people of God may be warned against this false gospel, and encouraged to pray for the repentance of those lost souls who have been enslaved by it. ADOPTED BY WESTERN CLASSIS MARCH 13, 1997 AND FORWARDED TO SYNOD."

Many may cringe at the strong invectives used by this denomination, but it is a fact that this idea that full preterism is heretical is widespread and strongly held by many. There is NO SUCH equivalent or anywhere near to it at all condemnation of partial preterism. Any that does exist is the "normal" level that exists with any in-house dispute - Calvinism v Arminiamism etc.

I never have had to defend partial preterism against a charge of heresy from a credible source (I have had one crackpot that I can remember who said that anyone who didn't believe exactly as he did in a partial rapture was a heretic) The only times I have ever had to defend myself against a credible charge of heresy has been when another person thought I was a full preterist. You cannot say that. It is a regular occurence with full preterists that they have to do so. Why? It is blatantlly obvious - two major Creedal tenets are denied. This is really not at all complex.

I am willing to work with anyone on how to word the true facts, but the true facts need to be presented.

The full preterist Mike has no issue with this and has demonstrated an even-handedness in this whole affair.

Dee Dee Warren 04:45, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

In addition

The proof is in the pudding - everyone now knows that Tim LaHaye is well bascially throwing a fit over the Preterist fictional novel The Last Disciple whichis a challenge to Left Behind. If in fact the MAJORITY of the Church thought that Partial Preterism was heretical, don't you think LaHaye who is desparate to discredit this book would have shouted that from the housetops? He has not - he has expressed his opinion that partial preterism leads eventually to full preterism which is heretical (edit to add, in retrospect I don't think LaHaye has even done that - it is MacArthur who said that once but it would not surprise me if LaHaye did or will, that is the common concern against partial preterism NOT that partial preterism itself is heretical)

In the debates that Tommy Ice has had with Partial Preterists (Tommy is a very well known and respected Christian teacher) he never has once mentioned that a majority of the Church believes partial preterism is heretical. It is simply not in the slightest inkling a "majority" view. I cannot describe that assertion in any other way than completely false.

It is not appropriate to sandbag a truthful statement by stating one will only agree if a demonstrably false one is included.

Here is Tommy Ice's statement on Preterism:

"There are at least three kinds of preterism. For lack of better terms we will call them mild, moderate, and extreme. [deleted discussion of mild preterism - not relevant to this discussion]

Moderate preterists believe that almost all prophecy was fulfilled in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. They do believe that a few passages still teach a yet future second coming (Acts 1:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) and the resurrection of believers at Christ’s bodily return.

Extreme preterists, or consistent preterists, as they prefer to be known as, hold that all future Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If there is a future second coming, they say, the Bible does not talk about it. Extreme preterists believe that there is no future bodily resurrection, which place them outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy."

Note that last sentence. Tommy, a stuanch opponent of preterism, only says ONE of the two is outside of orthodoxy, ie heretical. If he had any chance of saying that partial preterism was as well he would do so - he is NO friend of preterism by any stretch of the imagination.

And Tommy is a big name Christian teacher.

I have produced support by well known teachers and the largest Christian theology forum on Internet.

Dee Dee Warren 05:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

In conclusion thus far

Anon initially said it should not be included because it was only intended to defame. I responded to that which remains unrebutted. Anon next said he would only agree if it were stated that both were considered heretical by a majority of the Church. That is just simply untrue and I provided evidence on several levels, one by citing major sources on the issue, and two by logically analyzing how it would be big news and a weapon by those who oppose preterism on the world-wide level such as LaHaye and Ice would certainly make mention of that fact and use it in their criticisms. They don't. They only make it against full preterism. The most that is done against partial preterism to any extent is when it is confused with full preterism or someone believes that partial preterism will eventually lead to full preterism. I am sorry, but I cannot stress enough how factually deficient that assertion by Anon is, and the inappropriateness of refusing to allow insertion of a true fact unless a demonstrably false and misleading statement is also inserted.

A comparable example in Christianity (again a loose analogy) using my homosexual debate example above would be for the pro-homosexual side to say that they would only allow a factual statement that many or the majority Christians think the behaviour is immoral to be said if it is said that many or the majority think heterosexual behaviour is too because some groups such as the Catholic Church forbids marriage of clergy, and some fringe groups think that only vows of celibacy are holy. Does that seem ridiculous? Of course it does, and for anyone heavily involved in the preterist debate it is just as obvious that it is starkly untrue that many or the majority of Christianity think Partial Preterism is heretical. Would Hank Hanegraaff, the President of a Cult-busting ministry be able to keep his positio if this were true? He espouses partial preterist ideas even if he doesn't adopt that label. What about RC Sproul? He is the head of a very large conservative ministry and has been for years. No big stink has ever been raised about him being considered a partial preterist heretic - why is that? Because partial preterism is not a view considered to be heresy by any majority of the Church.

Dee Dee Warren 05:17, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

More garbage and personal opinions

Dee Dee Warren - if you want people to listen to you, maybe you should also consider listening more and stop "talking" so much.

You keep posting statements from groups/organizations who HATE Preterism, as if that should be considered "independent" evidence by any reader of this article. You keep maintaining that partial-preterism is not considered heretical, while 80% or more of the Church today susrcribes to dispensationalism (a view directly opposing Preterism) and DO view partial preterism as heretical because it rejects the Rapture and other dispensationalist tenants. You continue to argue for a definition of Preterism AGAINST what the dictionary itself defines Preterism as.

Any fair-minded individual would see through your web of mis-representation from a mile away. If you do a Google search for "Preterist heresy", you will clearly see many articles on WHY Preterism is heretical. All of them, or the vast majority of them discuss "full preterism" by using the word "preterism." You own definitiom proposal above makes partial-preterism as a subset of preterism. Why then are you refusing to label both movements as heretical? Could it be because you don't want to bear the label? I am a full-preterist and I have no problem with labeling BOTH movements as heretical while you want to just label the one you oppose as heretical.

Eusebius, one of the early Church fathers was a preterist himself. To say that Preterism was heretical is an insult not to just Preterists, but to all Christians who are open minded about this issue and church fathers like Eusebius who were Preterists. Eusebius wrote:

"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." - Proof of the Gospel, Book VIII

Without a doubt, Eusebius was a Preterist (full). He believed that the Second Coming of Christ happened in A.D. 70. You continue to maintain that Full Preterism is a "new" thing, while here is a father of the Church openly declaring Preterism almost 2,000 years ago. Was he a heretic also?

There is no logic to defining only Full Preterism as heretical or saying that Full Preterism is not Preterism to begin with. Someone rightly pointed out that a "partial SOMETHING" is not "THE something" while the "full SOMETHING" IS that "something". Full Preterism IS "Preterism"..it's FULL for crying out loud! Partial Preterism is just that...a "partial of Preterism." Partial Preterism falls short of meeting the linguistic definition of the word. A FULL loaf of bread IS the loaf of bread. A partial loaf of bread is NOT the loaf of bread...it's a part of it. One doesn't have to know anything about Preterism to understand this most basic logic.

Revealing the truth on the definition of Preterism

As I pointed out earlier to a Google search, here are articles dealing with why Preterism is heretical. All of them deal with full-preterism without having to explain that "Preterism" is "Full Preterism". It's an automatic understanding that Preterism IS Full. Yes, some view it as heretical, but look at their articles. They don't call it FULL Preterism...they just call is 'Preterism.' Some of these authors are even Partial Preterists, and they refer to Full Preterism as "Preterism". The truth speaks for itself:

THE HERESY OF PRETERISM

Preterism and the Question of Heresy

[http://jesus-messiah.com/smith/mikebell.html Australian Rejects Smith/Blume Amillennial Preterist Heresy]

MY RESPONSE

Because as proven before, in the community the word preterism CAN refer to either - I proved that abundantly. You have proven my point here, in the articles calling the view heresy, it is obvious that full preterism is referred to, not partial preterism. So in order to attempt to prove one point you are implicitly supporting my heresy point! And furthermore, none of those articles whatsoever are from any major or scholarly source with the possible exception of the second entry (written by a full preterist - hardly an unbiased source on this controversy, you might as well point me to your own writings as proof). The first article quotes a partial preterist, Gentry, and differentiates between the two preterisms! And far from equating preterism with full preterism the opening sentence says this:

"'Consistent preterism' or 'full preterism' holds that all prophecy is fulfilled in the A. D. 70 destruction of the Temple, including the Second Advent, the resurrection of the dead, and the great Judgment."

And later goes on to differentiate between the two preterisms. I am sorry Anon but that is not an honest use of sources you are posting here. Do I have to go and similarly dissect the other ones? You completely misrepresented the first entry.

Full preterism is WIDELY considered heresy - ironically Anon provided strong proof by citing the full preterist Otto from the Quidlobet Journal site - why is Otto defending himself against the heresy charge? Because his view is considered heretical by many!!! This just does not happen to ANY great degree with partial preterists in credible sources.

We have already settled that some sources us the word "preterism" (wrongly I would say, rightly you would say) to refer just to full preterism, and other sources do not as I abundantly shown, and by the way Farrar is not on your side. I did what I should have done at the beginning and that is to carefully look at his definition to figure out he could write that and still consider himself a preterist when he was a partial preterist,and here is the fact. He said "the prophecies of the apocolypse" have been fulfilled. It is assumed that apocolypse = the whole book of Revelation but that is an assumption that flies in the fact of Farrar's own application of the phrase preterism to himself, when he was not a full preterist, but a partial preterist. Farrar in context of his practice is merely stating that the prophecies regarding the event known as the apocolypse have been fulfilled (as contained in Revelation) - The Princeton definition, which is obviously an interpretatin of Farrar, makes that very clear. And he is right - and that is the only credible explanation to show how he could have that definition and apply it to himself - this is basic historical investigation. The fact is clear as far as the Wiki goes - there is no bright line for a NPOV to say the word can only mean one or the other in the face of such documented dispute - and it is abundant that in daily practice, which is what Wiki readers need to know about - it is used many ways. Your insistence flies in the face of history, of practice, and of the NPOV Wiki guidelines. It is simply not an accepted fact - in fact I showed that two major Christian publishers define it differently, Zondervan and Nelson, as well as all the scholarly works on the subject such as the famous Four Views books, and an excellently credible Revelation Commentary edited by Steve Gregg. Anyone honestly can throw up a website - independent pages (the third source of yours was a series of private letters! - readers go an look at that third link and honestly say whether this is the kind of scholarly evidence for this dispute....) can say pretty much anything and there is no process of peer review. However, published books by well known publishers by respected scholars carry weight as they undergo a much more rigorous scrutiny than fringe independant websites.

But you proved my point - full preterism is considered heresy by the majority of the Church - despite any misuse of terminology. And you provided no big names or mainstream scholars as I did - which shows in fact partial preterism, though opposed, is acceptable, full preterism is outside of orthodoxy, ie heretical.

Dee Dee Warren 15:06, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

overnight another piece of evidence occured to me

Here is something from PlanetPreterist, a full preterist site, and the site I believe that Anon is affiliated with. In discussing famous partial preterists, it is asked why it would not be likely that this guys would ever become full preterists, and here is what was said:

"Yes, it would be nice to see some of these guys like R.C. Sproul (news - website - books), Kenneth Gentry (news - website - books), Gary DeMar (news - website - books)r and now Hank Hanegraaff come clean and be consistent with their preterist understanding but there are many factors as to why it is unlikely. The foremost reason has to be reputation."

Why reputation? They are ALREADY vocal and famous partial preterists, and yet Anon would have us think here that partial preterism is considered heresy by a majority of the church just as full preterism is. The reason why reputation is the reason that this full preterist author himself at a full preterist site said is because precisely the OPPOSITE is true. These famous partial preterist men have all the credibility and reputation of orthodoxy within the Christian community at large. They would loose that if they became full preterists, why? Because, as I have been saying all along, full preterism is considered heresy by the majority of the Church.

Dee Dee Warren 14:57, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

ignoring the point

Here is something from PlanetPreterist, a full preterist site, and the site I believe that Anon is affiliated with

As opposed to preteristlist.com which is the site you are affiliated with, where you wrote: "Neo-Hymenaeanism is a foul heresy that I will fight until my dying breath..."

Is that the reason you are so bent on mis-representing Preterism in this forum?

Why don't you deal with the points I made above? Why aren't you addressing the "partial-preterism" being short of "Preterism"? Why aren't you looking at what a Dictionary actually says about Preterism? Why are you using this public forum for a theological debate and personal vendettas against those whom you hate, rather than the display of truth and facts?

I did address each and every one of your points

I did address each and every one of your points. Preterism as a word existed before there were any number of full preterists - I really wish you would deal with the logic of the historical points presented. You cannot have a man Farrar, make a definition for a word that would exclude himsself when he consideration himself as an example of what the word described. If you thinnk Farrar was that thick then you shouldn't be relying on his defintion. You see how your point cannot even sustain itself? You cannot have a word that was created to describe somethng that didn't even exist when the word was created. This is very basic logic. I have openly stated here that in my personal life on my personal site I am adamanently opposed to full preterism - however, that is not the issue here. On your site affiliation, you have an agenda as well in fact your site keeps threatening to sue people who disagree as was even done here. That is quite an agenda. I can produce some hair-raising comments from your site affiliation including encouraging people to start an edit war. However, that is not the issue here. Our personal sites are for those things. Each of the points I have raised have been historically proven and dispassionately presented. I gave sources and backups from sources that you cannot say have a vendetta or agenda. You have ignored each of them. I have also shown today how you have misread Farrar, so you really have zero official defintion on your side - in other words, the sole authorative source you claim doesn't support you. Rather than continuing to personally attack me, on a point of view I have conceded that I hold but have agreed to put aside here in the spirit of the Wiki, it would be nice if you deallt with the points. Why aren't you looking at what the two arguably top Christian publishers of Bibles have said? You keep simply reasserting your points without ever dealing with the rejoinders. You have not offered any substantive rebuttal at all to my points and my proposal, already agreed to by a full preterist, keeps what is in commonw with all definitions and thus fair to the spirit of the Wiki. Further it is not forthright to pretend as if you do not have an agenda in your personal site, so making mine an issue is blatantly manipulative. I don't think that is an issue unless is it made a part of the decisions here ie I don't give any reasons outside of my personal opinons for my position. However, I have given reasons that are from sources that are by any stretch partial preterism advocates - in fact some that are hostile.

On Eusebius - that is nonsensical. It says nothing about denying a future return of Christ - ALL preterists believe that Christ "came" in AD70, why is that not being forthrightedly stating. Some partial preterists even call that the "second coming" (such as Farrar) while still expecting a yet future bodily return of Christ to resurrect the dead. One generally unmistakeable sign of full preterism is to say that the resurrection of 1 Cor 15 happened in the first century etc. Your quote did violence to Eusebius and was not responsibily dealing with history. Furthermore, Eusebius in that quote appears to be referring primarily to the "first" coming of Christ of which the rest were the followup events. One should really be more responsible with history. This is the first time, in my four years in this field, that anyone from full preterism that I have seen has declared Eusebius a full preterist - in fact almost all concede that there were no prominent full preterists to be found in early history. There is a reason for this. There isn't. And again the way my points are misused is improper - I never said that there was NEVER ANY full preterists prior to recent history - I said there wasn't any movement of them to warrant a theological name - and when the name "preterism" was coined there wasn't any movement of them, and the word was applied to partial preterists. I should not have to keep clarifying my points like this - this would be the second time I have had to clarify this. Furthermore, it is not unthinkable for there to someone who holds to heretical beliefs in Church History, as a matter of fact, Eusebius was not a Trinitarian or was a marginal Trinitarian, there is evidence that he was a Unitarian. He certainly was NOT a full preterist. He lived at a period of timem when denunciations against gnostic ideas of the resurrection (which at that time a solely nonbodily and past general resurrection would have considered) abounded - the denunnications against him would have been swift and severe.

Dee Dee Warren 15:45, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Dee Dee Warren 16:38, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary Definitions

Keep up the lies and misrepresentations - you only expose your agenda even further.

From the Princeton WordNet 2.0 Online Dictionary:

1. preterist -- a theologian who believes that the Scripture prophecies of the Apocalypse (as in the Book of Revelations) have already been fulfilled

What's next now? You'll argue that Princeton University, a renowned school is being run by Full Preterists?

Oh, and I forgot to ask this: Is a "partial" loaf of bread THE loaf of bread?

MY RESPONSE:

And you are claiming that Nelson and Zondervan are owned by Partial Preterists? It is frustrating because if you go back to two days ago I adddressed this point. All you keep doing is reasserting over and over. This Princeton quote proves my point by the way (and ironically many Full Preterists don't believe Revelation is fully fulfilled, they believe it is ongoing - again shooting your point in the foot).

Why does the Princeton quote prove my point? Apocalypse can be taken two ways - it can refer to the whole book of Revelation or the Apocolypse that is described in Revelation, this is called a part for the whole, a linguistic convention. It is apparent by Farrar's practice that he was referring to the apocolyyptic events of Revelation as fulfilled - something that partial preterists believe.

Notice what this definition does not say, and I really wish you would be forthright with this - it does not say ALL Bible prophecy has been fulfilled. It does not say the resurrection and Second Coming have been fulfilled [though Farrar did seem to have two referents for the "Second Coming" one in the past and one yet future - so to be specific it does not deny a future Second Coming]. On numerous fronts it fails to support you.

Additoinally, even if for sake of argument it did support you, I have provided other very credible sources that don't define it that way. Why should we take a secular source over a Christian source? Either way we looked at it, I used credible sources and logic to show that the issue is not settled.

Also how can you claim that Princeton is qualified to give a theological definition when they don't even know that Revelation doesn't have an "S" at the end of it?

I gave reputable sources that defined is narrowly for me. The only clear thing here is that there is confliccting testimony and when that happens in a court of law, what the jury does is take the weight of what the conflicting stories have in common.

If preterism is, as it is, a theological construct that deals with the fulfillment of prophecy, you analogy is frankly inane, for then it is a philosphy that can be held in degrees, not an item itself which can be chopped down. And once again, the word existed before full preterism was a historical movement. It cannot mean solely something that did not even exist yet. That is the height of illogical reasoning.

And I would appreciate that you keep the personal attacks to your own site and not the Wiki. I have and will keep my editorial polemics to my own site. I am approaching this project here with a distant dispassionate outlook, and am trying to have a factual and fair NPOV article. I believe my manner has demonstrated that and am open to advise as I have been from the admins. I have never hid my personal beliefs, but that does not render me incapable of dispassaionate research which I have presented and has not been rebuttal in an unemotional fashion.

Dee Dee Warren 16:59, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

BTW

In that second citation of links above, the one by Otto, he doesn't just assume preterism is full preterism as a matter of fact - he defines what he is talking about in the opening paragraphs as "full preterism." It is distressing that now two of the three sources have been shown to not prove the point, and the third is simply two or three letters between individuals of little depth - not by any means something to proffer as proof.

Dee Dee Warren 17:02, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

oh my

Oh my...you ARE arguing that the Princeton Scholars don't know what they are talking about, while YOU, a biast part of this discussion do! As an FYI, I changed the article to match the definition given by Dr. Miller and Dr. Fellbaum from Princeton University. Besides Webster, they are a neutral source of information and they are accurately defining Preterism. You seem to be the only one disagreeing with not one, but TWO independent sources which define preterism accurately. I am sorry you don't like it...these are facts.

MY RESPONSE:

I will change the article back. Your edit is inappropriate and I solicit the assistance of the admins. You have not dealt with the historical and contrary information I have presented and have demonstrated frankly a belligerence here that I wish you would stop. I am making the edit and messaging the admins. You have not dealt with my points. There is not by any means a consensus on this, and Princeton didn't even spell Revelation properly. Princeton's seminary being a known liberal seminary that denies inerrancy is hardly a neutral source - please deal with points forthrightly. Zondervan and Nelson are written by our peers - conservative theologians. It is ironic that you appeal to a liberal source you would reject on any other subject (I don't know if the two gentleman you cited have any theological view - I am speaking generally of the seminary). There is no consensus, I have given solid evidence, and it is apparent that it is yuo with the agenda on the definition.

Dee Dee Warren 17:13, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Reading as an uninvolved party. Dee Dee's explanation here makes sense to me. The definition anon has added clearly describes some of the prophesies and not all. It's also important to realise that dictionary definitions are limited for our purposes, they are simply too short to describe all the issues. Of more use are longer articles, for example from another encyclopaedia. Do either of you have a good (neutral) example of one of these? I'm going to revert anon's change, it is not a good idea to start the article with a quote from another source in this way -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE:

Sannse, this issue is just frankly not in dispute in "neutral" sources, they naturally use preterism to refer to both partial and full - preterism is used as a philosophy that can be held in degrees, not a solid thing itself, if that makes sense. There would not be much on something that is really a nonissue in the larger academic community. One thing is certain, the word was used before there were any full preterists as an organized recongized eschatological view - so it cannot logically or possibly be interpreted to mean just them - that would mean the word was created for a nonexistent paradigm. Even the full preterists on their own sites talk about what a recent movement they are and that is why there is so much divergence in some of their views, because they are so young. How can a young mmovement claim that a word that is many centuries old was intended to describe only them? In fact, by inference I can let you know that systematic preterism (the theological philosophy, not the word, Alcazar did not invent the word as far as I know) is said by many to have originated with the Jesuit Monk Alcazar right around the time of the Reformation (five hundred years or so ago) - it is said numerous times that he is the inventor - yet he was not a full preterist. How can preterism then said to originated with him? There are just so many lines that prove Anon's assertion as inaccurate.

Dee Dee Warren 17:25, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

amazing

You guys keep your heads in the sand. Ignore both Webster and Princeton...I am done here.

forgive my intervention here. if preterism is naturally used to refer to both partial and full, why is the definition in the article not saying so?

MY RESPONSE:

The proposed change to the article does. The article that is currently up is not the one that is staying - if you look earlier in this section a new opening paragraph was porposed that is agreed upon by me and Mike, an full preterist collaborator with me. As a way of clarification to my statement though, so that I am clear, I said in the general community, out of the "mouths" of writers, they naturally use preterism to be both. I was not commenting on whether they were correct to do so (for I believe that the word historically belongs to orthodox preterism) but I was commenting that despite my beliefs and those of Anon, that the general community disagrees with both of us and in popular parlance, which is what the Wikipedia is more concerned with and what the Wikipedia readers need to know, is that it is used for both. I certainly cannot dispute that. Here is the proposed new opening paragraph prepared in collaboration with a full preterist:

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology dealing with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days prophecies in varying degrees. The name is derived from the term preterite, or past perfect tense. Adherents of these view are known as Preterists (Partial or Full).

Preterist eschatology, however, is not monolithic. There are two major schools of Preterist thought: Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. These different schools of Preterism have been described in various ways. Some adherents of Partial Preterism call their own position orthodox preterism to designate its conformity to the historic ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church in contrast to Full Preterism. Other labels for Partial Preterism include classical preterism and moderate preterism. Adherents of Full Preterism prefer either full preterism or consistent preterism in an appeal to its claim that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD; as such, full preterists believe partial preterists are being inconsistent in their method of biblical interpretation. There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, the first being a variation of partial preterism which places fulfillment of some passages in the first three centuries culminating in the fall of Rome. A second variation of preterism can be found in certain liberal schools of thought which hold that the the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation. However, these prophecies never came to pass, thus proving the non-inspiration of the text and the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

PS: I noticed an earlier post by anon that I didn't read until now but it turned out that I addressed all the relevant points in a later response to a totally different post.

I am writing Mike today with my proposed changes to his proposal. He and I after that will post a joint proposal.

But so that the concern above is not lost - the definitional part of the article will hopefully be changed to reflect that concern and keep in common what all the varying definitions had.

Dee Dee Warren 15:34, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I spoke with Mike

I did speak with Mike over the weekend. I am awaiting his next revision proposal. He said that we are 99.9% of the way there, and I agree.

Dee Dee Warren