Talk:Preterism/Archive 3

message: On this one issue in dispute, it is helpful to recap from my perspective the comprimise that has been taken.  First, if I were solely authoring this article I would have said "most view full preterism as heresy."  When collaborating with Mike, I didn't even suggest this, knowing right off that it would only cause issues, though I believe accurate.  So I comprimised and suggested many.  Mike agreed with that - Mike being very reasonable and forthright on this issue IMHO.  A dispute arose at that time with an anon poster - Mike and I were batting back and forth how this could be resolved when Kalos joined the discussion and suggested something even stronger than I was advocating.  I let Kalos know that while I thought he was accurate, it would only cause an edit war - Mike, Kalos, and I then worked on an additional comprimise from my position - and that was adding the qualifier "though not universallly" in order to satisfy the objection and yet remain accurate.  This position is the result of comprimise on my side, and the desire of us three (one orthodox preterist, and two full preterists) in collaboration working dispassionately with the facts.
Dee Dee Warren 17:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A helpful (perhaps) summary 

message: I am not logged in, that last entry is me - 
Dee Dee Warren 17:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  That last entry is me Dee Dee 

message: Dee Dee asked me to pop in here and see how things were going.  For those of you who don't know me, I was involved briefly in trying to encourage discussion and compromise on this article a while back - something that seems to be happening admirably here now.  
To the person protesting about "many" - remember that this sentence is not saying that Full Pretanism is heresy - just that it is often considered so by people other than its proponents.  It leaves open the possibility that they could be wrong in this view - Wikipedia not being the place to decide that question.  To the others, remember that all articles are a work in progress, and try to be open to changes (even though I'm aware of how hard you have worked to make this well written compromise version).  
It's difficult for me, as a person with no knowledge of Christian theology, to say which word is most appropriate.  All I can do is ask both sides: if I were to discuss this with all Christian theologians in the world, what number would be likely to describe this belief as "heresy"?  Remember this is not asking whether it is heresy.
This is probably one of the most polite discussions on any controversial subject in the encyclopaedia - I think you are all doing a great job.  -- sannse (talk) 20:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A head appears round the door

message: Hey all, I've been away for a few days, but am back now (although I may be gone again for a while during the holidays). I fully support the compromise suggested by Mike and agreed to by Dee Dee and myself. To the anonymous editors... if we had the ability to ask every Christian in the world (or every theologian if you think it would help you at all) whether or not they believed Full Preterism to be heresy, what do you honestly think we would find? Do you really think that less than 50% would say no? (I am using this percentage simply to make a point, because it would certainly by much higher than this IMO.) Is 50% not appropriately described by the word "many"? Remember that "many" is not "most". (I personally think "most" would be more accurate for this article, but like Dee Dee I think that "many" is a good compromise.) Remember, I am a Full Preterist! You are doing yourself and full preterism a disservice by being unwilling to work collaboratively and from a neutral point of view. If no defence of the use of "some" is attempted in 24 hours then I'm reverting this. --kalos 15:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I've been away...

message: What with the repeated quoting of sources that use the misnomer Hymenaeans [*] , or even the pejorative term HYPER-preterists and the biased label ORTHODOX preterists (forgetting that so-called "orthodoxy" is by definition what is commonly believed by publicly-visible and -vocal "Christendom", which at one time included the belief that the Pope-at-that-time was "The Antichrist") I am going to take a break from this discussion.
I must say I am please that at least the Full Preterist side rarely uses the term "consistent", which would be just as biased. But perhaps in a few weeks the use of the label "orthodox" - completely inconsistent with the SECTIONAL LABELLING of "PARTIAL"! - will be halted, and the need to name-call (i.e. heretic etc.) will also disappear. I am speaking, of course, in terms of what appears in the article contents - whatever self-label one chooses to use within this "Talk" page is totally up to the inidividual.
----
[*] Why "misnomer"? Read Paul's condemnation (2 Timothy 2:16-18) IN CONTEXT; the NATURE of resurrection was not mentioned as the issue at all - for by Paul's silence it may be presumed he was not denying WHAT was being proclaimed. At issue only was the TIMING! For if both HE and Hymenaeus were speaking of the same thing - i.e. a PHYSICAL resurrection - then Paul the brilliant logician would not have to resort to name-calling... Couldn't he have just said to his readers "Hey, look at our ordinary bodies" as obvious PROOF that the (physical) resurrection had not yet occurred!?
If that does not make sense to you, then consider this analogy: A Jew who in 50BC said "Messiah has already come" woudl be clearly incorrect; would it be logical to say their error would be identical to a Jew who chooses to express the EXACT SAME WORDS but 100 years later, in 50AD, where the circumstances are different after certain events have transpired to make the formerly-incorrect statement now a truthful one (in his opinion of course)!? Feel free to disagree with Full Preterists' concept of the resurrection's NATURE, but do not use the "Hymenaean" label so inappropriately in order to get implicit support from the long-dead Paul - for he would likely (in my opinion of course) be horrified at how anachronistic and illogical that type of argument is!
----
Good luck to you all of you my brothers and sisters, and remember "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things CHARITY". I hope to see more charity in the near future.
In Christ For Truth, Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 17:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm taking a break, as I am sick of the biased terms "hyper-preterism" and "orthodox preterism" instead of the FACTUAL labels (as are used in the SECTIONS!) "Full Preterism" and "Partial Preterism" 

message: I don't think there is a substantive argument forthcoming. Me reverting the change though is likely not a good idea.  I don't mind giving until after the holiday to see, perhaps folks are away.
Dee Dee Warren 10:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
:I've jumped in an restored the sentence - it appears to me to be a well argued and carefully constructed compromise -- sannse (talk) 17:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also archived a big chunk of the previous discussion - see the link above -- sannse (talk) 17:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalos? 

message: Thank you Sannse - I appreciate you seeing that it was a comprimise position to try to satisfy both competing interests.  Also thanks a lot for the archive, this page loads up much faster now.  
(don't have my password) This is Dee Dee
Dee Dee Warren 18:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks Sannse. Sorry I was delayed Dee Dee. We had a smowstorm hit and I lost power for a day. All better now, though. Happy holidays. --kalos 02:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  thank you Sannse 

message: It's too bad the anon editor who switched "many" to "some" doesn't identify himself or herself.  We might be able to have a decent conversation about historical objectivity.  As a truth-seeker, I'm changing it back to reflect reality.  When full preterism becomes the dominant eschatology, the anon editor and his or her cohorts can change it to fit the facts, if I haven't already beat them to it.
Mike Beidler 01:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Anon Editor Strikes Again 

message: I added the categories (Christianity, Eschatology) as a minor edit.
--Justin.eiler 22:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Categories (Minor) 

message: Would it be possible to have an addition to the article that explains the history of the Preterist school of thought? Such a history would, I believe, contribute greatly to understanding Preterism--at least for slow learners like me.
--Justin.eiler 05:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Preterism 

message: Hey Justin, DDW here  - that would be a good idea for the future.  I know that Mike and I were planning on adding an author list, but just have not done it yet and perhaps fleshing out our respective sections with some more Scripture references.  I just have been incredibly busy (yes, I am finally removing the evil frames from the PreteristList site).
Great! (And DEATH to the evil frames! :lol: )
--Justin.eiler 05:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey Justin 

message: I want to make an appeal to the of editors this article for fairness/  You are letting Wiki become the butt of jokes, not only on Slashdot, but in religious circles as well.  The links in the section labeled "Critics of Preterism" are all pages written by "partial preterists" attacking "full preterism."  There are ZERO critics of "partial preterism" in this article.  If that is fairness in your opinion, then you have a pretyt warped view of what fairness is.  Furthermore, you are letting ONE whacky individual (specifically "Dee Dee Warren" dictate the tone of this article.
Keep up the warped definitions...people will really start respecting this forum...
:Perhaps you could suggest some suitable links criticising partial preterism? Please try to keep things civil here, calling other contributors "whacky" is not acceptable.  Thanks -- sannse (talk) 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal to the editors 

message: The prior editor, none of whom seem to wish to post in the discussion section, deleted some portions of the article asking "for fair and unbiased descriptions of terms."  In that removal, he removed "classical preterism" from some portions.  I did not add that, and would not fight for it to remain. Where it was placed it could conceivably be viewed as biased as a reciprocal designation was not given for full preterism.  So I actually agree with that edit.  "Classical" is given in the one place where the alternate names are given.
However, it is an unbiased historical fact that partial preterism is the older of the two views, so I put that back in.  It is not biased or inaccurate to state a fact.
Dee Dee Warren
Cadwallader 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: As a visitor to wikipedia (sent by one I asked about preterism) I was impressed with the discussion in this page. I would like to add my 10 cents worth if I may.
I approve wholeheartedly of the attempt to provide a NPOV (I guess that means neutral point of view) on the issue and, sadly I have to agree that in most churches preterism (of every stripe) seems to be a minority viewpoint. So to say that many consider preterism a heresy is just accurate. That even includes some who would consider it a heresy just because they never heard the term before.
I note the consideration given to the idea that "partial" preterism is an older view than the "full" preterist view. Now I am not sure whether I am out of line here but it seems the move away from the older three terms, "premillenialism," "postmillenialism" and "amillenialism" makes it difficult for an accurate assessment as to the support from older writers. The preterist authors I have read (mostly from the Reformed and Presbyterian Publishing company's writers) would tend, it seems, to be partial preterists. Which may indicate no more than the publishing company's preference. I believe systematic theologians of the Reformed (including Puritans of Presbyterian, Anglican, and other persuasions) would feel more comfortable with partial preterism. I acknowledge that *may* be my bias.
I find it fascinating that, while you have succeeded, to a very large extent, in providing a neutral point of view in your articles, critics of preterism have failed to deal fairly with your hermeneutic. It takes honesty to acknowledge your viewpoint does not accord with many in Christendom at large and it seems to me that, where the writer is honest enough to admit this, an honest attempt to deal fairly with Scripture should be listened to. I don't think any of us has gotten past the "now I see through a glass darkly" point (no matter what part of eschatology we imagine it refers to).
Finally, thank you to all three of you for your collaboration - my only complaint is directed to Dee Dee: compromise is not spelled comprimise :)
H. Phillips email:tuhituhi@charter.net - October 22, 2005
Thank you H.as I am sure you have seen through these pages I am an outspoken advocate against full preterism - but there is a time and a place.  I have my own site to say what I will.  When I first came here (go back and look at some of the older article versions) were simply propoganda pieces for full preterism.  I confess and repent that my first edit was to fire a bazooka back, but thought better of it and that is how Mike and I came into collaberation which I think has been fruitful.
Dee Dee Warren 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preterism article response 

message: That is a misspelling I often make.  I agree with you on that transmillennium issue and the level of attention that some editors have wanted to give it here.  Max King and progeny are not the face of full preterism today.  Sure his site deserves a mention but the almost blatantly advertising is inappropriate.
However with pantelism - that is not a different group (I don't know if you  know the history of the name) but rather Pastor Chori's attempt to keep the historical meaning to preterism and use a term that the full preterists will accept since Hymenaeanism went over like a lead balloon.  I know several full preterists who happily go by pantelist, and isn't there a full preterist site called pantelism.com?  Thus I would think that is a legitimate alternate name as it is used by one of the few book-length critiques and it is intentionally non-perjorative.
Dee Dee Warren 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops 

message: User Virgil Valduva removed this quote:
Christian critics of full preterism point to the Apostle Paul's condemnation of the perverse doctrine of Hymaneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18), which they regard as an analagous to full preterism.
which he said implies full preterists are not Christians.  In that the paragraphs states "Christian critics" he is correct that it is not NPOV even though I personally stronly agree with the statement and would consider myself one of those Christian critics - but that is not NPOV for Wiki.  However that statement does belong in the piece, omitting the word "Christian" and simply stating
Critics of full preterism point to the Apostle Paul's condemnation of the perverse doctrine of Hymaneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18), which they regard as an analagous to full preterism.
And moving it to the place where the opposition is discussed not in the place where full preterism is explained.
Dee Dee Warren
* I removed the word "perverse" since it makes quite a biased statement.  Besides that, the statement is fine, although the "critics" is you and a handfull of other people.  That sentence should technically be moved to the article on Partial Preterism since you are critiquing from a partial preterist perspective.  It would also be helpful to list who/what and where critics are pointing to Hymenaeus and Philetus rather than making a blanket statement. --Virgil Vaduva 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit 

message: It appears that someone with a personal grudge against Living Presence keeps removing the links to their website from the 'Proponents of Full Preterism section.  That links has been here for years, and the organization is most certainly a Preterist organization.  Since this is an article on Preterism, ambiguities can be decided by the user, rather than editorial bias.  Also, the founder of Living Presence having his own wikipedia page has nothing to do with this article.
--Virgil Vaduva 15:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Living Presence Links 

message: First, it is factually untrue that the persons who hold such a position are:
1.  Partial Preterists (I know numerous historicists and futurists who do as well so to say this is only from a partial preterist perspective is factually untrue)
2   That such a foundation is me and few other people.  That is ture.  Whole denominations and other Christian organizations have made official proclamations and my site alone lists numerous (hardly a few) others who state the exact same thing.
The word "perverse" does not violate the NPOV because it is not saying that anything IS perverse, but that certain people think it is.  That is a factual recitation of an opinion.  However, where the word perverse was placed did not make it clear that the reliance was on Paul's opinion and not those of others, thus I moved the word to make it clear that it was the "opinion"of the Apostle.
ADDED: Lists of those "critics" are made in the reference links.  My site alone lists numerous ones, and even the hyperpreterist site PreteristArchive ran by Todd Dennis lists numerous people who do.  Those links are on the bottom.  
Dee Dee Warren 16:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV once again 

message: Perhaps the user who keeps removing the link to presence.tv will explain himself and the purpose of his/her changes.  As far as I am concerned is borderline vandalism.
--Virgil Vaduva 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon grudge strikes again 

message: Suppose there was a group listed in a Christian directory. And suppose they had been "listed for years" (as Mr. Vaduva claims for the Transmillennialists in this entry), but suppose at some point the group no longer identifies itself with Christians.  Would it be accurate for it to continue to be listed in the Christian directory? Obviously not, thus in the same manner, it is completely inaccurate and inappropriate to list the Transmillennialists under the Preterist entry.  Besides, if they have issues with this, let them come make the case for themselves. Mr. Vaduva doesn't speak for the Transmillennialists does he?
* I restored the link...your arguments are totally assinine.  I also have suspicions of who you are based on your IP address.  Does the fact that you got kicked off their website and other preterist websites have something to do with your willingness to remove their link from Wikipedia?  --Virgil Vaduva 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmillennialists NOT Preterist 

message: Do TMs explicitly deny that they are "preterist" - if so, it seems they would not want to be on this page but on a page of their own.    And bringing up stuff outside of this article is not relevant.  Someone could have the biggest grudge in the world, be banned from a zillion sites, and still be right about the point.  Debate the point not the person - that AFAICS is the Wiki-way.
Dee Dee Warren 03:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  == A question for Virgil == 

message: I will take a look at that information you supplied anon and Virgil.  John, if you wish to get personal do it on your own site.  I will not engage you with that here which I also understand is inappropriate to Wiki rules.  As far as the TM issue, I am not knowledgeable enough on this TM controversy but am reading with interest.
Dee Dee Warren 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for the references 

message: Someone deleted a whole paragraph I wrote as follows:
First the original edit was not mine, nor do I know who did it. I re-read the sentence and though perverse (more accurately gangrenous which is the Bible says Paul thought) is proper. However, the word "condemnation" is sufficient as far as I am concerned. If the original editor that added perverse wishes to come and defend their edit, I will gladly hear their arguments and am open to change my mind, but for me thus far "condemnation" is sufficient and is not worth fighting over as the spirit of Wikipedia is compromise and Neutral Point of View. Adding or taking away of that word does not IMHO add or detract from the factuality of the piece, thus you will not have an edit war with me over that particular issue. I know how to choose my battles, and this is not one worth fighting.
end quote - there is nothing incorrect in that paragraph, so please stop deleting my discussion points.  Thank you.
Dee Dee Warren 13:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop editing my comments 

message: I added resources for the Partial and Full variants of Preterism that are from my own personal library.  If anything is missing, feel free to add important resources that aren't listed here.
 
Mike Beidler 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book Resources

message: Mike, thanks for taking on the task of the book resources.  I think I may have a few to add - Brian Schwertley's for instance as it is available for free online which is always a good thing.  I am also wondering as to the appropriateness of perhaps listing my Matthew 24 commentary which is book-length though not published (yet) in hard form.  I say "yet" because I am planning on self-publishing it at some point in the future in a spiral ring hard form.  If you would like to see what I am referring to for its appropriateness of inclusion: http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html
Dee Dee Warren
:Books, placed multiple books from the same author under thata master author list, or somesuch. I was getting confused.--Tomtom9041 22:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And just to add fuel to the flames. I do not consider Saul,whom you call Paul, to be an accurate source on anything as I believe him to be either an agent of Rome, at the worst, or someone who takes advantages of situations.--Tomtom9041 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomtom ... Not sure why you would consider Paul an agent of Rome, especially considering he was incarcerated by the Empire and eventually executed by his supposed ally.  And what leads you to believe Paul takes advantages of situations?  I'm not slamming your position; rather, I'd like to know where you're coming from.  Also, do you consider yourself a preterist? --Mike Beidler 05:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Mike, Yes I do and I think that I have been for a while. I have done much of my own research, esp vis-a-vis the Essene-Nasarene movements and other Easter rites churches. Many of which believe that Paul was an ancient of Rome, see the invocation of his citizenship in Acts. I am starting to agree with much of the allusions in Bible conspiracy theory. Not espousing my views.--Tomtom9041 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Mike 

message: With the last edit? what was wrong with the link Mike added? (correction: Mike did not add the link - an anon did - but what was the problem with it>)
Dee Dee Warren 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the deal? 

message: A piece cannot be changed because one does not like the historical fact, one must challenge, on an objective historical basis the fact.  There is little to no dispute that partial preterism existed long before full preterism with the first systematic preterist being almost universally considered to be the partial preterist Alcazar with the next prominent one being Eusebius.
Dee Dee Warren 02:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted edit 

message: I would have no issue with that with one addition, I would consider idealism to be a major school as well.  In fact I know there is a significant minority within preterism that hold to a preterist view of the Olivet Discourse and an idealist view of Revelation.  Why don't you make those changes?  (I don't know how to link to other articles embarassing to say).  If I don't see you making them, maybe I will add those lines and someone who knows how to do the Wiki tech stuff can make them linkbacks to articles.
Dee Dee Warren 15:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Prophetic Schools of Interpretation 

message: I undid the changes made by 208.54.15.129.  I don't want to get into the presence.tv argument again folks, so let's just stick to minor changes and discussions before we start removing each other's links again.  Also the pharisees.org link added by the spammer is obviously not related to preterism...it seems to be a hate-site with a grudge against Ken Gentry...it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
Good edits Virgil.  That particular spammer also tends to go into Paltalk rooms spamming that link as well.  It doesn't have any substance to add to the discussion. I am pretty ignorant of the presence.tv issues and stay out of it. Dee Dee Warren 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammer hits again 

message: Dee Dee, we've had problems with the same user/website on Planet Preterist, with spam comments, blog entries and articles. --Virgil Vaduva 22:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Dee Dee 

message: Thanks Mike for catching that. 
Dee Dee Warren 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The spammer hits again 

message: Virgil, I'm not sure how to go about requesting a ban on the pharisees.org vandal.  I tried to use the Contact Wikipedia link, but whatever processes are there appear quite cumbersome.  Maybe with a three-pronged approach we (you, I, and Dee Dee) can get the skinny on this process.
--Mike Beidler 03:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning vandals

message: I have found that unless they are daily being disruptive and doing great harm, personal vigilance and editing is the best way to handle.  Otherwise one can contact an admin that has already been on this page such as Hu or Sahnse.
Dee Dee Warren 11:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banning Vandals 

message: Mike I don't know what to do about that anon editor.  It appears from his talk page he has been a suspended vandal before.  
Dee Dee Warren 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor... 

message: Virgil and Mike, I reported the vandalism to an Admin.
Dee Dee Warren 20:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I reported to an Admin 

message: Thanks DD - I doubt they can do much about it. --Virgil Vaduva 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could consider protecting it if you really want to. I went ahead and put up a request for you. It doesn't seem major enough for blocking or page protection, though. - Zero1328 Talk? 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think protecting it to Registered Users only would not be an unreasonable request considering the animosity often experienced here - granted we all have come a long way so far. --Virgil Vaduva 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible to prevent this link from being posted anywhere on Wikipedia; I'm currently going through the process to make that happen. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Dee Dee 

message: I am confused, granted I don't really much come to this article, I don't understand the reversion war and what is Anon's agenda, additionally what about the Simon Barcova Insurrection et al? where would or does this figure into things?--Tomtom9041 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon user

message: Dee Dee - I thought we were going to stay away from controversial labels - if we are going to continue to use the prefix "hyper" we should perhaps mention the "hypo" prefix as well.  I went ahead and added it to the list of labels for partial preterism.  I was hoping this whole label discussion was over, but apparently it is not.  --Virgil Vaduva 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using derrogatory labels 

message: Dee Dee - factual or not, wikipedia articles are affected by the biases of those who write them, especially when both full and partial preterists contribute to this article.  My problem is not necessarily with the term, but with the environment in which it is being used and how it predisposes readers of the article to view either side of this argument.  Also, whether or not these prefixes are popular or not is not relevant.  People use them on both sides in a derrogatory manner, so if you will refer to one, please mention the other as well - be factual.
I really hate to get into this whole thing with you.  I want a gracious relationship with partial preterists and I am hoping that can be a mutual thing, but if we are resorting to the use of the hyper label, then to every hyper there is a hypo, and if you last edit indicates that hypo is an offensive prefix to you, how is it then then you do not find hyper to be offensive to me? --Virgil Vaduva 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common labels 

message: Me and another editor (unknown to me) reverted blatant vandalism.  
Dee Dee Warren 11:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Blatant Vandalism 

message: Hi all. Might I make the following suggestion for a change. "Some Partial Preterists prefer to call their position Orthodox Preterism, thus contrasting their deference to the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the Full Preterists' disregard for the same." I think this should be changed. One of the arguments against orthodox/partial preterism (which is what I refer to by the term "preterism") is that it merely *defers* to creeds. But to state this as a factual claim in a wiki seems a little biased. My suggestion would be as follows: "Some Partial Preterists prefer to call their position Orthodox Preterism, thus contrasting their agreement with the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the Full Preterists' rejection for the same, thus making Full Preterism unorthodox, giving rise to the claim by some that full preterism is heretical."
Beretta NZ 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A meek suggestion 

message: I think it would be a lot easier to stay away from those labels on both sides of the argument.  I do not wish to call partial preterism either "heretical" or "orthodox."  Doing so would bias and taint the article for an independent reader that knows nothing about preterism.  All those words carry preconceived baggage.  You guys do whatever you want but I want to voice my public dislike for going down that route.  Every so often we seem to be rehashing those same arguments and we seem to never be making much progress towards an actual development of the article. --Virgil Vaduva 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heretical, Orthodox, Inconsistent 

message: I plan on officially joining the development of the Wikipedia Preterism page.  I have been in discussion with Dee Dee Warren about this before actually posting.  I clearly understand & agree with the NPOV & desire to stay true to that concept.  As a starter to what I will propose, I want to quote a few influential preterists so that no one can claim what I propose is from bias, malice, or grudge.
There are an astonishingly large number of full prets who are following the exact same line of thinking [universalistic conclusions], based upon the chronological approach of seeing the consummation of the ages in ad70.  It is a big mistake in my opinion, but I cannot help but grudgingly admire those who are so committed to consistency.  I agree that grace is comprehensive in the New Covenant age, but that the only way to be found worthy to enter into that realm is in Christ (Luke 20:35).   By founder and leaders of the movement I meant Max King and the contributors at planetpret and pantelism.com, which, though off the beaten path, is an influential website.  There are also a large number of discussion boards which are walking the same path, as you might know.   I am looking forward to Max King's book release, which should forever change the landscape. -- Todd Dennis source 
Max [King] told me a few years ago that he had changed his position on the "all in all" to adopt a more universalist position. That may or may not be the case because he has not written anything that would suggest this. -- Sam Frost source
What I am proposing is that "traditional Full Preterism" is being/has been taken over by "Preterist Universalism", which was originally introduced into traditional Full Preterism by Tim King (Max King's son) as "Comprehensive Grace" & has been championed by folks such as Virgil Vaduva, even if via alternative labels.  In response to the shift, Todd Dennis has introduced what he is calling "Preterist Idealism", indeed Todd now calls himself a "former full preterist".
I think it is important to relate this shift (as evidenced by Todd Dennis & Sam Frost, not just me) & the variants of full preterism.  What is being passed off as full preterism today is NOT what many of us were advocating 10-15 years ago.  It is not fair to Christians examining full preterism to let them think it has always been represented by the liberal & universalistic branch. 
Roderick E 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Preterism variants 

message: This article will presuppose the reader is knowledgeable with the basic distinctions of "Full & Partial Preterism" 
What is not commonly known to Christians who are recently adopting the Full Preterist view is that Full Preterism is experiencing a major focus shift within itself.
A very simple history of the Full Preterist view in modern times might go something like this:
* Max King in the 1970s advocates "covenant eschatology"
* David Chilton in the 1990s embraces Full Preterism, not long before he passes away (1997)
* Tim King (son of Max) in the 1990s-2000+ advocates "comprehensive grace" (universalistic salvation)
* In 2002-2006, major internal battle between Full Preterists over the issue of "preterist universalism".
* In 2006 Todd Dennis introduces "Preterist Idealism"
* In 2006, many Organic Developed Preterists part ways with the Preterist Universalists
The first problem comes in because the Preterist Universalists are not EXPLICIT (clear/open) about their universalistic leanings & sometimes even appear to deny it, yet any concerted reading of their materials would easily conclude univeralistic theology.
The second problem comes in because the Preterist Universalists tend to be more vocal & are propped up by many Preterists "leaders" who themselves are NOT Preterist Universalists, which confuses new preterists into thinking most preterists endorse universalistic conclusions.
The third problem comes in from Preterist Universalists' constant mixing & meshing the preterist message with the postmodern or "Emergent" message, almost to the point of making the preterist view a subset or a partner with those movements.
The fourth problem is that Preterist Idealism (by Todd Dennis) seems like a "retreatist" response to the growing universalism in the Full Preterist community.  Rather than tackle the shift head on, Todd seems to have instead created another label as an alternative to Full Preterism, which merely causes more confusion. (indeed, Todd even calls himself a "former full preterist")
So, to overview the Schools of Full Preterist Thought, we might present it this way with its subsets:
Full Preterism
1) Covenant Eschatology (Max King – Church of Christ brand) 
a)     Transmillennialism (Tim King, Max’s son in distinction to growing preterist movement)
b)     Preterist Universalism (Virgil Vaduva & others applying hyper-Arminian & postmodern conclusions)
 
2) Developed Full Preterism (David Chilton & other former partial-preterists developed from long history of preteristic theologians, typically Reformed/Calvinsitc)
a) Preterist Idealism (Todd Dennis & others in retreatist response to Preterist Universalism)
So, in actuality the Developed Full Preterism is older because it hails from the long history of preteristic thought & remains truer to that development where as the other schools are fabricated, often out of reactionary conclusions.
Obviously this statement requires further modification & categorization.
Roderick E 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Full Preterist Variants 

message: To be more complete, the section on criticisms needs a subsection from a historicist perspective. DFH 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Preterism from a Historicist perspective 

message: Hehe...pretty soon this article should be renamed to "Criticism of Preterism" to better illustrate what it's becoming :)
--Virgil Vaduva 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Criticisms of Preterism from a Historicist perspective 

message: I think that is unnecessary.  What I think would be useful is to add parenthetical comments after a particular critic IF necessary.  For instance, my site hosts criticisms from ALL perspectives, I don't care if they are futurist or historicist.  Other sites do so as well.  If there are particular sites that wanted to be noted as Historicist Critics then that should be added as a parenthetical comment.
And of course I am with Roderick and Theonomy - NPOV requires reporting all views in an accurate matter.  The idea is educationn not indoctrination.
I do plan on making the edits that Theonomy and I discussed above, I just haven't had time.  I also am awaiting feedback then on that "critics" comment I made above because having all those subcategories just doesn't reflect the reality of how sites are organized.  In this, Virgil is correct.  The main purpose is the article itself - not all of the resource sites and breaking them down into unnecessary minutea.
Dee Dee Warren 12:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics of preterism from [blank] perspective 

message: Roderick, I do not wish to have any interaction with you whatsoever here or anywhere else, and I will oppose and reverse any changes you are making on this article should they be in the vein you proposed to reinvent Preterism to your liking, and don't bother replying; I have no interest in anything you have to say.
Dee Dee - I don't see your interaction with Theonomy anywhere here, maybe I am missing something.  Can you summarize so I can get a grasp on what you are suggesting?  As you well know me I am not unreasonable in accommodating any opinion that is presented respectfully and reasonably.
--Virgil Vaduva 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants & stuff 

message: As you can see, Mr. Vaduva continues to paint this as a personal issue even after I showed evidence that even Sam Frost & Todd Dennis acknowledge the shift in traditional full preterism.  It is not just me trying to "reinvent" full preterism.  And as I showed from the several quotes by Vaduva he actually has advocated "reinventing" full preterism to fit his depiction of it. 
With that said, I think I am on solid ground to begin making some modifications to the actual wiki article on preterism to reflect this recent shift in full preterism.
I will consult with other respectful and reasonable accomadating contributors to this entry who will be able to have actual conversations about this entry & will begin modifications soon.
Roderick E 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications to begin soon 

message: At the start of this wiki entry there was an on going edit war which Mr. Vaduva was constantly reversing edits & the admins had to be called in.  Even at that time Mr. Vaduva, as is his custom accuses everyone of "attacking".  Now, he is at it again. Reverting my one paragraph, non-biased edit calling it "vandalism".  Mr. Vaduva didn't even create this entry, Dee Dee Warren & Mike did most of the work & I have been in ongoing discussions with Dee Dee Warren.  Mr. Vaduva refuses to interact like a real person & instead continues to behave very immaturely.  The only vandalism going on here is by Mr. Vadvua who just as he originally did, thinks he can dictate how something is said or done.  I won't play his little game.  I'll be appealing to the admins.
Roderick E 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IT IS MR. VADUVA AGAIN 

message: To everyone else involved in editing this article, the modifications made my the user Roderick E are a leap of logic for any reasonable person and cannot communicate a neutral point of view on Wikipedia based on a negative generalization.  The statement could have as well stated "Starting a few years ago, some Preterists believe the moon is made of green cheese."  It is a slanderous and inaccurate statement that cannot be proven wrong, it is therefore unacceptable here on Wikipedia and any other edits along those lines will be reverted back to the original.  There are "universalists" among all denominations and all flavors of the Christian religion, yet I do not see this individual editing any other articles on Wikipedia to illustrate this fact.  In fact, from looking at his contributions to Wikipedia, it appears that the sole purpose for which he became a user was to edit this article in order to slander other people.
Any further changes along those lines will be reverted, and more whining like a little baby will not convince me or anyone here otherwise.  I already stated my reasons for reverting changes, so appealing to admins will not get things his way.  These changes are absolutely unreasonable and the article is just fine the way it has been for the past year because of the constructive changes Dee Dee Warren, Mike Beidler, myself and others have contributed towards it.
--Virgil Vaduva 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whining and Appealing to admins 

message: I don't feel Roderick's latest entry is valid since I don't see a significant group/sect/segment of Preterists subscribing to Universalism. As with any doctrine there are going to be a handful of individuals with different flavors - but hardly make up any type of majority.
In addition, the paragraph doesn't add any vital information to Preterism rather, it comes off as more of a warning by a biased group of people. You'd never find such jargon in an Encylopedia.
What's next? A paragraph on how some Preterists are turning Arminian, or Old Earth, or Local Flood? The latest edit by Roderick just doesn't make the cut.
Kyle Peterson
Armothe 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Group of Preterist Universalists? 

message: Roderick E please stop hotlinking to rulestheweb.com.  It has been blacklisted for a reason.  It has been a source of wiki spam for a very long time.  Please ask before you stroll in and make such changes.
Frank Thomas 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rulestheweb.com 

message: The amount of links and books listed in the article, strongly resemble spam. The guidelines on External links should be followed here. There is no need for dozens of links to be given, a few informative ones (from the various POVs) should be included. A bibliography section is supposed to be about the sourcing of the text of the article. There is absolutely NO way that all of the books listed are actually used in that manner, and none except those actually used to create the text should be here at all...--Nilfanion (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article though. All people involved here should read WP:NOT... Just because it is "your" website, doesn't mean it should be in this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totaly agree with that.  My opinion is that ALL links to websites should be removed unless they are used in a bibliographical sense.  I know a few of the site "owners" would agree with me.  Charleca 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I also second Nilfanion regarding link spamming; the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to provide links back to supporters or dissenters of a POV.  Unless the links have some sort of biographical relevance, give it the axe.  And yes, that likely means all the websites I maintain as well. --Virgil Vaduva 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that in order to defame Planet Preterist, its "owner", and/or its users? Charleca 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Defaming?  If I made a statement that a person is human that would not be "defaming".  The quote is completely factual & something that site & its users espouse on a daily basis.  There is no defaming intended.  I just would like them to actually say what they mean & mean what they say for once.  It's not that they are offended by the content of the statement, they are offended by who has made it.  -- They "hate" my guts & as Virgil pointed out want nothing to do with anything I say EVEN if it is true.  I could just as well make a statement that the sky on earth is typically blue & they would oppose it just to oppose me.  This is the extent of their seething hatred.
Roderick E 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive cleanup of links and bibliography needed 

message: After speaking with a brother whom I greatly respect & after seeing how what I propose will be blocked no matter what, not because it is untrue (as the documentation shows what I propose is valid), but simply because it is me & those receiving it have an insatiable disdain for anything I say no matter how factual -- I would like to delete all of my comments from this TALK PAGE, but also any responses to my comments as well.  If no one objects (within 7 days), I'll take the silence as agreement & delete both my comments & their responses.  I do this out of good faith of reconciliation.  I do not retract the things I proposed as none were nonfactual, just that I want to remove the stumbling block so that progress can be made.  I still think this entry on Preterism needs to discuss actual origins, development & current trends.  Thank you.  Roderick E 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think they need to stay. Charleca 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will also object, the discussions should stay. Armothe 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok thank you, I'll leave it as is & I standby everything I said. Roderick E 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dee Dee, I've come to really appreciate your heart and honesty on those issues, and especially your reaction to the Wikipedia rules. I confess I was also unaware of some of those issues.  I propose as a first step in the spirit of cooperation and in order to remove all links which are links to individual blogs, since Wikipedia is not a blog links repository and also remove all links that are not direct links to the root of a website.  For example anything that does not link to www.blahsite.com should be removed, again there seem to be enough rules to suggest that deep-linking to minor reference pages should not be taking place. That could be a first step small towards cleaning up the links categories.  Once that takes place we can take it to the next level which I assume it will be more difficult for all of us. --Virgil Vaduva 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Permission

message: Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment