You are hereBlogs / Morry's blog /

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By Morry - Posted on 08 September 2011

Morry's picture

Strictly considered, the Yet Future-to-the-C.21st approach has foundational faults. By this is meant it has the foundational stability of sand compared to rock.

The Yet Future-to-the-C.21st foundation looks LOOKS AWAY FROM the C.1st bible and:-
1. begins from an assumption of literalism,
2. leading to a delay that can't be proven,
3. implying a gap that can't be observed,
4. based on time facts that don't exist,
5. exciting an expectation that can't be falsified- He will come because He hasn't
6. producing a theory that has failed every generation for 2000 years,
7. opposing the direct statements of Jesus,
8. but believed to be 100% dogmatically for certain,
9. functioning to fragment Christianity into an est. 30,000 divisions
10. while admitting the field cannot be unified.

A C.21st approach is built on the sand of speculation, conjecture and deductive
logic. "All the history of science goes to show that when a theory cannot be
observed, cannot tested, cannot be proven, cannot be supported by facts, can only
be ignored." (Stanley Beck. The Simplicity of Science. P. 85. Penguin. USA 1959)

Oppositely a Preterist foundation LOOKS BACK to the C.1st biblical datum and:-
1. begins from NO assumptions,
2. doesn't need a delay that can't be proven,
3. denies a gap that can't be demonstrated,
4. is based on time facts that may be observed
5. demonstrating Jesus performed what He promised to that generation
6. producing a successful coming in His own generation,
7. consistent & correspondending with the direct statements of Jesus,
8. but believed to be merely more probable,
9. functioning to unite division with one single perspective
10. while admitting the simplest basis to unite the field: ie.

"The things promised in speech and writing to the C.1st people recorded in a
C.1st were fulfilled in their lifetimes." Mk 9:1; Mtt 23:35-36: 26:64.

A Preterist approach is built on the rock of rational thought: observation,explication and inductive logic.

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43