Preterist

As for Revelation being literally true, look up the "preterist" interpretation.

The latest drivel I read along the preterist path was Andrew Perriman´s "The Coming of the Son of Man". ❋ James F. McGrath (2010)

So far as the preterist argument with the words "this generation" in Matt. 24, this can be reconciled any number of ways which includes that Jesus was talking about the generation of the church or the church age. ❋ James F. McGrath (2009)

You don't recognise "this generation will not pass away until these things have taken place" is quite easily explained by the partial preterist position to which I'm partial though not fully convinced since I haven't studied it a ton, which allows for some fulfillments in 70 AD and waits for others at the final Eschaton? ❋ James F. McGrath (2009)

Yet another difference that confuses the usual categories of eschatological interpretation is whether the book of Revelation is interpreted in a preterist, historicist, or futurist manner. ❋ Unknown (2008)

I'm riding the preterist train, but it seems clear to me that Matthew, at the very least, understood the prediction in question to refer to the "end", since he refers to the Son of Man carrying out the final judgment immediately before saying that some standing there will not taste death before they see the Son of Man in his kingdom. ❋ James F. McGrath (2008)

There are more scriptural references to support a futurist view of eschatology, than a preterist view. ❋ Unknown (2008)

You just gotta hop on board the preterist train to realize it. ❋ James F. McGrath (2008)

Since you don't do us the favor of proclaiming your church affiliation here, I can only assume that you have been taught some sort of a preterist view of the Revelation. ❋ Unknown (2008)

A preterist is one who believes that most of the prophecies of the Apocalypse have been fulfilled in the past. ❋ Unknown (2008)

Hanegraff's novel is written from the preterist position, which holds that most of the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century A.D. There are variations within this perspective that are more or less viable, as my book, Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"? discusses in some detail. ❋ Unknown (2004)

You might find it to be less pulpy or less preterist than you expected. ❋ Unknown (2004)

The preterist believes this "coming" has already occurred, and the age of grace (the New Covenant) commenced at the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD -- thus ALL the Feasts of Israel have already received their eternal fulfillment in Christ. ❋ Unknown (2010)

If you are going to try to present hyper-preterism as a reasonable position, at least be man enough to present it as a hyper-preterist. ❋ Unknown (2009)

I have no intention of continuing to give you a platform for hyper-preterist arguments. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Nevertheless, my point wasn't that he is a full preterist, or an authority, but - as I said - there are plenty of non-'marginal 'Christians who see Matthew 24-25 as fulfilled in the first century. graham said: ❋ Unknown (2009)

I did my best to not reveal my own take on things (preterist) so they could get a clear picture of all the different perspectives I presented. ❋ Unknown (2009)

I'd say that Sproul is a bit fuller than the average partial preterist. ❋ Unknown (2009)

You are called hyper-preterist becauxe many reformed folks do sign up to what is called preterism or partial preterism. ❋ Unknown (2009)