copy and pasted post to preterist from another forum

[Peter]

I don't really have a first hand understanding of the term "The times of the Gentiles." I have heard what others say but I'm not sure. Maybe you could explain it to me. Ha Ha - Well MH do you want to guess again? I am not a Preterist .....

Maybe you don't know what preterism is, though I left you a wikipedia link. In your post at the following link you had John's 7 kings/beasts ending with Nero, who ruled during the first century. That's a preterist view.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=786.0

.....- I am an independant Bible student that reads a lot of history. Grew up in the AOG but went back to history and the scriptures [original sources] to try to discover the truth of the word despite my Denomination's teaching, which I have thrown so much of it out. I don't reject them however. I have never attended a Church that was not Dispensational. I have never been quiet about my Amillennial view, but it has cost me as I never was allowed to participate in the inner circle of any Church organization.

The greatest error of the church. Men believing they have positions of authorty as a result of usurping Jesus Christ's authority. Their practice as you found, is nicolaitionism, one of the things God expresses a personal hatred of. Good book as to how the church came to be in this state is Pagan Christianity by 100 year old elder Frank Viola.

And so I did what I could , cleaned toilets and Janitor work, also I did some ushering. Mostly just grunt work. But there has been no job beneath me and I did my best. Imagine - a Pentecostal Amillennialist.

So then it was your Pentecostal ox that got gored as well. Do folks in your church talk in "tongues"? If so, when someone speaks in tongues, is the spirit that is causing that person to give utterance tested or "tried"? Does someone interpret the tongues? Does it even sound like a language?

My greatest struggle was when I rejected Dispensationalism as untenable and for about 5 years had no view of Eschatology at all.

I started writing about it, and the more I did the more things fell apart, rather than fitting together. The Lord then led me to overcome that doctrine by leading me to a sound bible teaching elder that has a traditional continuous-historic view of prophecy and does a good job of teaching the use of sound hermeneutics in study. As a result, for almost 30 years, he has taught about the central role of Islam and Mohammed in end-time prophecy. It's easy and fun to read, and free online or in PDF, if you want to explore a view of an entire continuous historic context:
THE FALSE PROPHET

You've already overcome one doctrine, so it should be easy for you to at least consider another through wide open eyes. But you will have difficulty if you keep trying to wring it through a filter of the doctrine you hold now, while you are considering it.
You have to take it as a whole, and then compare it with what you currently believe. I've yet to have a conversation with anybody who has read this book and wasn't blessed by it in the extreme. It has been responsible for revival in whole bodies of Berean spirited believers.

Then I discovered there were other views - so I read up on them all and decided that the Catholic, Reformed Presbyterian, Church of Christ, [Paul Butler] and Lutheran Eschatology was the most accurate.

Their view is preterist. You are a preterist. I think the reason the enemy put those pop-doctrines of preterism and futurism in the 20th century church was so that the last person in the world, the church could ever see as THE false prophet of Revelation, is Mohammed.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=786.0

I have stolen many ideas from many denominations. Most of what we know comes from others - right. I am still rebuilding my Eschatology after about 3 decades. I still don't know, first hand, what some parts of scripture means.

Maybe we aren't supposed to, and maybe we will be led to the answers eventually. That's why I try to stick to fulfilled prophecy. But since we all, Jew and Christian, hold a continuous-historic view of the Old Testament, shouldn't that be our first presumption as to how New Testament prophecy is fulfilled as well, if we are to remain consistent in our study?
It would seem the church shared this view, for most of the Christian era.
Like the other Wikipedia article on preterism, this article is full of inaccuracies, but it will give you the general idea.
Historicism (Christian eschatology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/traditional_framework.htm

Both articles try to suggest that the Roman Church held a preterist view. But Jesuit Alcazar penned his preterist doctrine in the 17th century, just decades after Jesuit Ribera penned his futurist doctrine. Are we to believe that the Roman Church did a massive flip flop like that? First adopting the futurist view in the 16th century and then changing their mind yet again to the preterist view in the 17th century? Indeed this would seem to confirm the view that these two Jesuits were assigned to invent these doctrines to try to fool the reformers who, through their continuous historic view, and in light of the papal persecutions, had the Roman Church fingered as the "whore of Babylon". The RCC was trying to deflect reformer attention away from the RCC. The reformers didn't buy it, but eventually much of the 20th century church did.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/end_time_myth.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grPwQ2obbFA

I'm not really sure that any of us live long enough to learn the entire Bible for ourselves.

By the way, if you click your mouse on the numbers that you list, it will give you a link to that particular post and you won't have to say "Post #xx" after the link you paste.

Thanks for the tip I didn't know that. I'll see if I can master that.

So how were the "times of the Gentiles" fulfilled in Jerusalem in 70 AD when the Gentile Romans came back to whack another 750,000 Jews Bar Kochba revolt a little over 60 years later? And then the Gentile Romans fell to the Gentile Muslims, and then.....
I don't really have a first hand understanding of the term "The times of the Gentiles." I have heard what others say but I'm not sure. Maybe you could explain it to me.

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htm#times_gentiles

I mentioned that element since your eschatology is preterism and inspired heavily by the Olivet Discourse.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

It fits the preterist doctrine to say the "times of the Gentiles" were fulfilled in Jerusalem by the events of 70 AD but it doesn't fit the historical reality. Indeed the Gentile Romans whacked another 750,000 Jews a little over 60 years later, then in 639 the Gentile Roman Empire fell to the Gentile Mohammedans, etc. etc., over the centuries, until 1967 when the Jews regained control of Jerusalem. And of course the Jews were "led away captive", and persecuted, throughout the Christian era (by the Roman Church as well as Mohammedans with 8 million killed by the Nazis alone), until they gained control over their own destiny with their restoration to their land and city, no more needing to wander in the "wilderness" of the nations.

I believe that Daniel prophesied the restoration of the Jews to their land, and to their city, 2500 years in advance, and he did it right to the year, in two parallel problems.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm

Preterists hold other inconsistent views. It's known as replacement theology because they believe that the church replaced the Jews as God's chosen people at the cross.
Yet they claim that the "abomination of desolation" was when the Romans tore down the temple in 70 AD.
Since they believe that the temple had been replaced almost 40 years earlier, how could this be described as an abomination?
Since they believe the temple was rendered desolate by the cross, how could an already long desolate temple be desolated?
Perhaps the biggest problem with the doctrine is they have to change the dating of the book of Revelation from about 95AD, to before 70AD, then treating portions of Revelation as if it were a historical record rather than a prophetic vision.
http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/pret01.html

The above are not insignificant flaws, and without redating the book, preterism collapses through just a few verses, just as futurism does through it's rebuilt temple.

What do you have to loose by considering another context? You are already familiar with futurism and preterism which leaves only idealism and historicist (which term I avoid because it also describes a specific doctrine of some guys that claim the pope is the antichrist as was popular in the reformation (but it is no surprise for back then)).

You know how far you would have gotten trying to understand preterism by wringing it through the doctrine of futurism that you held! There's an 1800 year gap that separates the views!

Why not consider the traditional continuous-historic context that you already hold for Old Testament prophecy, for the book of Revelation too? Please consider this one view, within that context, on it's own merits. It's fast, easy, and fascinating reading:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_false_prophet.htm

It might be fun to be an even bigger pariah at church, because it makes just too much sense that Mohammed could be THE false prophet, and Islam the final oppressor of God's people as the "beast" of Rev 13. It's like pouring hot coals on the heads of preterists and futurists.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_beast.htm

I already asked you, and for any other preterists here, who does preterism teach is the false prophet of Revelation?
Some preterists contend that "The False Prophet is equated with the leadership of apostate Israel"

of the false prophet
New Testament Greek Definition:
5578 pseudoprophetes {psyoo-dop-rof-ay'-tace}
from 5571 and 4396; TDNT - 6:781,952; n m
AV - false prophet 11; 11
1) one who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters
falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies
2) a false prophet

Does the Greek term "pseudoprophetes" appear to lend itself to something we can spiritualize away as a metaphor? That Israel is, or that several false prophets are, when the article "the" is used with prophet singular? Pretty difficult to support.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.