ECT What makes Preterism so impossible

[Totton Linnet]

Is the sheer weight of evidence, proof, eyewitness accounts which surround all the other gospel facts.

His birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, His being seen by many during 40 days and His ascension.

All these facts are solidly testified to

But His coming again is with a much greater display of power and glory and we have

ZIPPO

Zippo evidence for it ever happening, just one weak and crooked account by Josephus.

 

[Sonnet]

Is the sheer weight of evidence, proof, eyewitness accounts which surround all the other gospel facts.

His birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, His being seen by many during 40 days and His ascension.

All these facts are solidly testified to

But His coming again is with a much greater display of power and glory and we have

ZIPPO

Zippo evidence for it ever happening, just one weak and crooked account by Josephus.

I agree.

What about Matthew 24:34?

 

[Totton Linnet]

He had just given a whole truck load of things we can spect to see happening just prior to His coming again

When you see THESE things the generation which is alive to see these things [us?] will not pass away until all things be accomplished

 

[Interplanner]

That may be the case for "preterism".

Now, let's talk about what actually happened. The sources you are mentioning have tons of information about the disaster that would happen in that generation--the wrath of God on Israel. It did.

On that question, the English pastor Peter Holford was able to use Josephus description so effectively in 1805 that the atheist writer Thomas Payne had to postpone publication of his book that had dismissed Christianity as superstition. Payne never recovered. In fact, I don't think skepticism in general did. They switched their attack to Genesis in the next generation.

The same sources actually say that the 2nd coming was to happen right after the wrath on Israel, although there is an allowance for a delay in Mark, Matthew and in what Peter says later (but recounting Christ). Only in Paul do we NOT see an allowance for a delay. He indicates regularly that the day of judgement is to come right after the desolation of Israel.

The upshot is this. Mt24 is either about 1st century Judea (up to v29) or about the future worldwide coming in judgement of all mankind (after v29). Some admonitions are pretty much the same for both events. If this distinction is not kept, then, yes, the material is 'impossible.'

As I understand it, Preterism has a pretty good grip on the Judaistic audience of the apostles, so that when it refers to the new creation that has come in 2 Cor 3-5 (which is probably the most advanced explanation of how the Christian faith relates to the previous covenant), the 'new creation' is simply Christ and the new covenant. (The grammar of 5:18 actually supports that--Christ is the new creation, not the individual believer). The problem is that many Preterists then go on to violate 2 Peter 3 which says that the worldwide coming in judgement is yet to occur, and that the NHNE are meant in the ordinary sense, just what Peter said about the flood in ordinary language.

 

[Clete]

I agree.

What about Matthew 24:34?

The whole of Matthew 24 makes Preterism impossible but not because Jesus was mystically referring to some far future generation. His words may now apply to such a future generation but He was talking to the generation that they were intended to apply to when He said them. The reason they ended up not applying to that generation is explained in Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9-11.

Prophesy is not prewritten history.
In Jeremiah 18, God explains that just because God says He's going to do something to or for and nation doesn't set it in stone. If God promises to give a nation a kingdom but that nation does evil then God said that He will repent of the good He intended to bless the nation with and vise versa...

Jeremiah 18: 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that Israel has been cut off because of the principle taught in Jeremiah 18. In short, Israel was cut off because of unbelief (Romans 11:20). They did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. God wanted to bless Israel and to give her a kingdom but they refused (Romans 10:21) How then can God give a kingdom to a nation which rejects the King? Thus God, intending to make Israel into a vessel of honor, made it instead into a vessel of dishonor. (Romans 9:21)


Thus, Preterism is clearly a false teaching, not only because none of the things mentioned in Matthew 24 happened but also because Paul clearly explains that it didn't happen and why.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Interplanner]

The whole of Matthew 24 makes Preterism impossible but not because Jesus was mystically referring to some far future generation. His words may now apply to such a future generation but He was talking to the generation that they were intended to apply to when He said them. The reason then ended up not applying to that generation is explained in Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9-11.

Prophesy is not prewritten history.
In Jeremiah 18, God explains that just because God says He's going to do something to or for and nation doesn't set it in stone. If God promises to give a nation a kingdom but that nation does evil then God said that He will repent of the good He intended to bless the nation with and vise versa...

Jeremiah 18: 1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

In Romans 9-11, Paul explains that Israel has been cut off because of the principle taught in Jeremiah 18. In short, Israel was cut off because of unbelief (Romans 11:20). They did not believe that Jesus was their Messiah. God wanted to bless Israel and to give her a kingdom but they refused (Romans 10:21) How then can God give a kingdom to a nation which rejects the King? Thus God, intending to make Israel into a vessel of honor, made it instead into a vessel of dishonor. (Romans 9:21)


Thus, Preterism is clearly a false teaching, not only because none of the thing mentioned in Matthew 24 happened but also because Paul clearly explains that it didn't happen and why.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No, Clete,
he was not trying to give them a kingdom as we know it at all. This is what Jn 12:34 is about. The crowds thought from the Law that that kind of kingdom was coming. But Christ said he was the 'light' and they needed to be 'in the light.'

Thus the reign of God (the term is not a state power as we know it, but merely the reign) did indeed come and they were supposed to join. It was to be powered by the proclamation of the word of God with the Spirits power. The most forceful example of that was Pentecost and the ensuing mission movement.

The same is true of Rom 9-11, which does not patch up things with Israel where they 'left off' by rejecting a kingdom he did not promise (obviously). What it says is that if they join the Christian mission movement, they will be very effective. Paul wanted 'all men to become like him (the missionary)--except for the chains.' The end of Rom 11 is quite clear that God is done with dealings with different ethnes in different ways; it is all resolved now: all men are under sin and all may receive mercy in the Gospel.

By quoting Isaiah, Paul was showing all this was fulfilled in Christ: the Redeemer did come to Zion; sins were taken away (justification in Christ) and the new covenant was launched. It was all true historically. The Israel that will be saved is all the people who believe this. He started distinguishing Israels back in 9:6 and 26, where it includes people from the nations, in case we think he means a sub-group.

Besides there being no indication that a state theocracy will be restored by God to Israel, there is theologically no need! The Gospel has come--the culmination or fulfillment of all redemptive activity God meant to do for mankind! In Christ!

The OP is quite right that 'cramming' the 2nd coming into the DofJ is confusing and impossible. That's Preterism's fault. It is not what the NT says.

 

[Clete]

No, Clete,
he was not trying to give them a kingdom as we know it at all. This is what Jn 12:34 is about. The crowds thought from the Law that that kind of kingdom was coming. But Christ said he was the 'light' and they needed to be 'in the light.'

Thus the reign of God (the term is not a state power as we know it, but merely the reign) did indeed come and they were supposed to join. It was to be powered by the proclamation of the word of God with the Spirits power. The most forceful example of that was Pentecost and the ensuing mission movement.

The same is true of Rom 9-11, which does not patch up things with Israel where they 'left off' by rejecting a kingdom he did not promise (obviously). What it says is that if they join the Christian mission movement, they will be very effective. Paul wanted 'all men to become like him (the missionary)--except for the chains.' The end of Rom 11 is quite clear that God is done with dealings with different ethnes in different ways; it is all resolved now: all men are under sin and all may receive mercy in the Gospel.

By quoting Isaiah, Paul was showing all this was fulfilled in Christ: the Redeemer did come to Zion; sins were taken away (justification in Christ) and the new covenant was launched. It was all true historically. The Israel that will be saved is all the people who believe this. He started distinguishing Israels back in 9:6 and 26, where it includes people from the nations, in case we think he means a sub-group.

Besides there being no indication that a state theocracy will be restored by God to Israel, there is theologically no need! The Gospel has come--the culmination or fulfillment of all redemptive activity God meant to do for mankind! In Christ!

The OP is quite right that 'cramming' the 2nd coming into the DofJ is confusing and impossible. That's Preterism's fault. It is not what the NT says.

Man, oh man! The pretzels people twist themselves into! Why do you bother even reading the bible if you're just going to believe anything you want, regardless of what it says? I don't get it.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

Psalm 132:11 The Lord has sworn in truth to David; He will not turn from it: “I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body".

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 16:5 In mercy the throne will be established; And One will sit on it in truth, in the tabernacle of David, Judging and seeking justice and hastening righteousness.”​

No theological need, indeed! Give me a break!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Go ahead and explain how the throne of David was never intended to be a about an actual, on the ground, political kingdom. You'll have to in order to preserve your doctrine.

 

[Interplanner]

Man, oh man! The pretzels people twist themselves into! Why do you bother even reading the bible if you're just going to believe anything you want, regardless of what it says? I don't get it.

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

Psalm 132:11 The Lord has sworn in truth to David; He will not turn from it: “I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body".

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 16:5 In mercy the throne will be established; And One will sit on it in truth, in the tabernacle of David, Judging and seeking justice and hastening righteousness.”​

No theological need, indeed! Give me a break!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Go ahead and explain how the throne of David was never intended to be a about an actual, on the ground, political kingdom. You'll have to in order to preserve your doctrine.

I guess you don't know anything about shadow v reality, then. That's what the NT is about--the reality. The theocracy was a shadow, just like the law was a shadow, and the temple and the worship system. That's what Hebrews and Col 2 is about.

The resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of everything promised to the fathers (Acts 13's sermon) including how the promises to David were transfered into Christ, per Isaiah which is quoted there. It's the one official apostolic sermon in a synagogue under no local pressure of a local 'issue'. I don't think you have ever heard of it. I think you have lots of Dispensational theology in mind which many people think is "the Bible."

David's collapsed tent has been raised: it is the mission to the nations, says Acts 15 speaking about amos 9.

The Acts 2 quote is not a offer of a theocracy restored. It is to show that Christ would help in their mission to the nations. God wanted Israel to be missionaries to the nations. That's why Pentecost has the kick-start feature of that; the miraculous launch of that. God wanted all Israel to be like Paul because they had the best background. Very few responded, and many went off with the zealots instead and fought Rome and were decimated, as Christ said.

So I guess the question is: which Bible are we talking about?

There are 2500 quotes or usages of OT passages in the NT. You have to become a scientist in them and then the relationship is clear. The OT means what the NT says it means. That is apostolic authority. It does not mean what Ryrie, walvoord, Lindsay, LaHaye, Scofield say it means.

 

[Clete]

I guess you don't know anything about shadow v reality, then. That's what the NT is about--the reality. The theocracy was a shadow, just like the law was a shadow, and the temple and the worship system. That's what Hebrews and Col 2 is about.

The resurrection of Christ is the fulfillment of everything promised to the fathers (Acts 13's sermon) including how the promises to David were transfered into Christ, per Isaiah which is quoted there. It's the one official apostolic sermon in a synagogue under no local pressure of a local 'issue'. I don't think you have ever heard of it. I think you have lots of Dispensational theology in mind which many people think is "the Bible."

David's collapsed tent has been raised: it is the mission to the nations, says Acts 15 speaking about amos 9.

The Acts 2 quote is not a offer of a theocracy restored. It is to show that Christ would help in their mission to the nations. God wanted Israel to be missionaries to the nations. That's why Pentecost has the kick-start feature of that; the miraculous launch of that. God wanted all Israel to be like Paul because they had the best background. Very few responded, and many went off with the zealots instead and fought Rome and were decimated, as Christ said.

So I guess the question is: which Bible are we talking about?

There are 2500 quotes or usages of OT passages in the NT. You have to become a scientist in them and then the relationship is clear. The OT means what the NT says it means. That is apostolic authority. It does not mean what Ryrie, walvoord, Lindsay, LaHaye, Scofield say it means.

Your doctrine is unfalsifiable.

I'm not sure whether you understand what that means but in short it means that your doctrine could be anything you want it to be because its all entirely up to your own interpretation. Your doctrine is true only if your a-priori assumptions are correct but your a-priori assumptions can only be correct if your doctrine is true. The same sort of reasoning is responsible for every deadly cult you can name. Not that you're a member of a cult, I'm just saying that the reasoning that produces your shadow/substance doctrine makes the same kind of logical errors. There's no rules for determining what is shadow and what isn't nor is there any rule for determining what substance is being shadowed. Anything can be a shadow and any shadow can represent anything. Any passage that could potentially argue against it is magically turned into a shadow that you get to define the substance of. It's all dazzlingly circular, unfalsifiable, blind beliefism. You might as well join The Flat Earth Society.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Totton Linnet]

That may be the case for "preterism".

Now, let's talk about what actually happened. The sources you are mentioning have tons of information about the disaster that would happen in that generation--the wrath of God on Israel. It did.

On that question, the English pastor Peter Holford was able to use Josephus description so effectively in 1805 that the atheist writer Thomas Payne had to postpone publication of his book that had dismissed Christianity as superstition. Payne never recovered. In fact, I don't think skepticism in general did. They switched their attack to Genesis in the next generation.

The same sources actually say that the 2nd coming was to happen right after the wrath on Israel, although there is an allowance for a delay in Mark, Matthew and in what Peter says later (but recounting Christ). Only in Paul do we NOT see an allowance for a delay. He indicates regularly that the day of judgement is to come right after the desolation of Israel.

The upshot is this. Mt24 is either about 1st century Judea (up to v29) or about the future worldwide coming in judgement of all mankind (after v29). Some admonitions are pretty much the same for both events. If this distinction is not kept, then, yes, the material is 'impossible.'

As I understand it, Preterism has a pretty good grip on the Judaistic audience of the apostles, so that when it refers to the new creation that has come in 2 Cor 3-5 (which is probably the most advanced explanation of how the Christian faith relates to the previous covenant), the 'new creation' is simply Christ and the new covenant. (The grammar of 5:18 actually supports that--Christ is the new creation, not the individual believer). The problem is that many Preterists then go on to violate 2 Peter 3 which says that the worldwide coming in judgement is yet to occur, and that the NHNE are meant in the ordinary sense, just what Peter said about the flood in ordinary language.

You have interjected the words "on Israel" with regards to God's wrath.

Israel's punishment was that they were to be dispersed carried off captive to all nations, this is what happened to Israel....as usual God's judgement was lined by mercy for the Jews were driven to all the nations which were to receive the gospel.

The day of the Lord is God's wrath upon the nations and His VINDICATION of the Jews...we saw the Jews were scattered but we shall see and DO see that they are to be gathered.

 

[iamaberean]

That may be the case for "preterism".

Now, let's talk about what actually happened. The sources you are mentioning have tons of information about the disaster that would happen in that generation--the wrath of God on Israel. It did.

On that question, the English pastor Peter Holford was able to use Josephus description so effectively in 1805 that the atheist writer Thomas Payne had to postpone publication of his book that had dismissed Christianity as superstition. Payne never recovered. In fact, I don't think skepticism in general did. They switched their attack to Genesis in the next generation.

The same sources actually say that the 2nd coming was to happen right after the wrath on Israel, although there is an allowance for a delay in Mark, Matthew and in what Peter says later (but recounting Christ). Only in Paul do we NOT see an allowance for a delay. He indicates regularly that the day of judgement is to come right after the desolation of Israel.

The upshot is this. Mt24 is either about 1st century Judea (up to v29) or about the future worldwide coming in judgement of all mankind (after v29). Some admonitions are pretty much the same for both events. If this distinction is not kept, then, yes, the material is 'impossible.'

As I understand it, Preterism has a pretty good grip on the Judaistic audience of the apostles, so that when it refers to the new creation that has come in 2 Cor 3-5 (which is probably the most advanced explanation of how the Christian faith relates to the previous covenant), the 'new creation' is simply Christ and the new covenant. (The grammar of 5:18 actually supports that--Christ is the new creation, not the individual believer). The problem is that many Preterists then go on to violate 2 Peter 3 which says that the worldwide coming in judgement is yet to occur, and that the NHNE are meant in the ordinary sense, just what Peter said about the flood in ordinary language.

Those that violate 2 Peter 3 are not Preterists. They may call themselves partial preterist, but it is really a case of either all things have been fulfilled or they haven't.

preterist - noun - a person who maintains that the prophecies in the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled.

 

[Interplanner]

Those that violate 2 Peter 3 are not Preterists.

If you don't clarify, then I assume you mean that you are partially preterist. I know plenty of them that go figurative on 2 Pet 3. It is inexplicable, other than they are choosing a system over a passage.

 

[iamaberean]

If you don't clarify, then I assume you mean that you are partially preterist. I know plenty of them that go figurative on 2 Pet 3. It is inexplicable, other than they are choosing a system over a passage.

I actually went back in to my response to point out that one can not be a partial preterist. A preterist believes 'all prophecies' have been fulfilled. I am a Christian who believes all prophecy has been fulfilled.

 

[Danoh]

I actually went back in to my response to point out that one can not be a partial preterist. A preterist believes 'all prophecies' have been fulfilled. I am a Christian who believes all prophecy has been fulfilled.

Hah - I knew it :chuckle:

Of you, Interplanner, and Tel, only Interplanner is the one closer to a true Partial Preterism.

Tel still leans too much toward Full Preterism in some areas.

And you and Tel are much more subjective in your approach then Interplanner is; especially you, IMB.

You, IMB, lean too much along a line of Russell's prophesed visions from God approach.

Still, it says something about the actual objectivity of each your approach that you can not pick up on who subscribes to what just from the recurrent pattern of thought their words reveal.

As Freud rightly noted "Every belief repeats the history of its origin."

 

[Interplanner]

I don't use a chronologically derived name for a view that is about a person--Christ. Mine is Christocentric, and historical.

 

[Danoh]

I don't use a chronologically derived name for a view that is about a person--Christ. Mine is Christocentric, and historical.

More like based on your OVER reliance on sources external to Scripture.

It's time you fessed up what most everyone on TOL see as obvious :chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

I agree.

What about Matthew 24:34?

You would have to know exactly what "pass away" means and He could mean the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.

obviously Jesus did not return with angels in the clouds with trumpets

Matthew 24:30 KJV - Matthew 24:31 KJV -

 

[john w]

Well, since the "obsessed with MAD," so much so that he is unemployed, and suffered a debilitating injury, years ago, when those meanie dispies hurt his fragile, wimpy feelings, and he suffered the loss of his spine/backbone/vertebrae, and thus will not "call to the carpet" perverters of the gospel of Christ, as long as they are of the "non dispensational persuasion," "Partial Preterist" slick, greasy, wimpy Tellalie Craigie, suffered another "death knell," recently, I will present his "argument," to everyone on TOL, who are obviously Darby followers, "in denial," and who "follow the teachings of fallable men," and "man made" inventions," and do not follow the infallible teachings of God, which he claims to follow, through his infallible women/alien teachers. To wit:

"Jesus never physically returned, and never will physically return to planet earth after He ascended to Heaven"-Preterist deceiver Tet.

vs.


“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.


"Everyone" that saw Him, according to Craigie, was Josephus, and Wikipedia. Wait....According to Craigie the Clown, he did not return physically, but all of Jerusalem saw him.. And, according to Craigie the Clown, signs are invisible...


Wait...

Vs.

"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD viathe Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread

"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-moron Craigie Tellalie

"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tellalie.


Hebrews 9:28 KJV
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Craigie the Clown: The Roman army was looking for him-that is the "them" above. My infallible AD 70/Pteterist "teachers" taught me,like J. Stuart Russell, Max King, Josephus, Wikipedia, Ken Gentry, Gary DeMars, RC Sproul, Hank Hanegraaf,....................... from whom I copy'npaste/plagiarize/spam.




Shazam, Gomer!


Preterist Gomer Tet...from the army of the ignorant.


I know, I know....Darby...Bullinger....You follow the teachings/inventions/theories of fallible men, "man made" "inventions," unlike me, as I, Craigie, follow the teachings of infallible men, or women, or the pope....Vision of a teenage girl.....Darby.....Bullinger.....Figurative.....Hyperbole...Fulfilled AD 65, or 66, or 70, or 666......No one taught dispensationalism, until Darby, and "The Flintstones," and no one taught that the earth was round, until "recently," so, it is false, and no one taught of the concept of "God the Father," until this "Jesus" I reference, in disrespect, flipping the bird at him, came around, so, it is a "invention," false, and the idea that he will be King on the planet earth, ..........and Pluto was a planet, at one time, as when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth, you see, well, uh, urr, and thus, the Lord Jesus Christ was not really the Lord God, until I, Gomer Tet., discovered it, you see.....You all on TOL are in denial...Fleshly...Don't you believe God/the bible/"Jesus"/Paul/Peter?....Darby....You are in denial.....Not one person/dispie, in the history of the world has/can answer my questions....Darby....Bullinger...You all are in denial......Darby.....Darby.....


Why are you all in denial?

 

[Interplanner]

More like based on your OVER reliance on sources external to Scripture.

It's time you fessed up what most everyone on TOL see as obvious :chuckle:

Nonsense. No one else mentions it. Time to get out of your head.

Lk 19 and 21 are clearly about the DofJ and if that is "outside material" too bad for you.

You never talk about that, about Jn 12, 18, Gal 3, 4, 2 Cor 3-5 ad nauseum.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Has ANYBODY hit on the difference between partial preterism (an orthodox interpretation) and full preterism (heretical) yet?