Talk:Preterism

message: ... between a) Christian Preterists who believe that Revelation was a divinely inspired prophecy, which predated and predicted the sack of Jerusalem; and b) sceptics who would argue that it does indeed refer to these events, but was written later.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.120.30 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A distinction needs to be made 

message: I was wondering if there might not should be some clarification noted on the Full Preterist section on the Second Coming. Of the full Preterist that I know, I do not know of any that believe that the Second Coming that happened in 70 AD was the Rapture. Since it links to a aritcle on the Rapture, it appears that the second coming in 70 AD was the Rapture, rather than just a coming in judgement.
Jerry Moon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revelationist (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Coming 

message: An editor added the word "fleshy" in a way meant to be perjorative adding it as fact, rather than an opinion of fact.  If the editor wishes to insert that, a NPOV way of doing so would be  to say "physical body, which full preterists would state is 'fleshly'" instead of making one's opinion of someone definition a factual assertion.
Dee Dee Warren 18:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleshy 

message: Are we all pretty much in agreement over the NPOV stuff and the generals of the article?  If so, can we remove the ActiveDiscuss tag at the top of the article? --Virgil Vaduva 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ActiveDiscuss 

message: Virgil - limiting it to some partial preterists (your last comment) seems to be ackward - for it is not only their position.  Many outspoken persons aren't preterist at all.
With regards to the change Parousia 70 made - I have never met one full preterist meeting that description.  While he might be able to round up a few, that is hardly any kind of substantial number to warrant an encyclopedia entry.  That is the exact argument we made against Roderick's suggestion to include some other variations - right now it simply wasn't warranted.  I do not think we can include this extreme minority and then not include Roderick's suggestions - thus, the article should stick with the basics IMHO.
65.8.107.9 12:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already removed Parousia70's change a day or two ago.  As for Virgil's, my thought's were similar to yours, but I was having trouble thinking of a way to reword it. -- Charleca 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on edits 

message: Dee Dee, someone contacted me with the concern that your most recent change replacing "that" to "thus" is "stating a conclusion regarding Full Preterism" rather than letting the reader decide.  How about trying to rephrase the entire sentence?  It currently states: 
Naturally, their critics assert that the Resurrection has not happened and thus, the condemnation applies.
How about trying other versions and eliminating "naturally" and "thus?"
--Virgil Vaduva 18:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From that to thus 

message: Virgil, I reworked the sentence.  Is that one acceptable?
Dee Dee Warren 02:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dee Dee, thanks a lot...I really appreciate your spirit and willingness to resolve those issues. :) --Virgil Vaduva 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reworked sentence - to Virgil 

message: I'm removing my website link, this time permanently as I am disassociating from preterism.  Preterism requires a strong dose of 1 Cor 11:19 "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." before I am willing to associate with it again.  Thanks Roderick E 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing thekingdomcome.com 

message: Having consulted with some of the major contributors to this entry, I will be deleting the book list and website list in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.  However, if a book or website is referenced within the text of the entry itself, feel free to create and add it to a Bibliography section. --Mike Beidler 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhh...clean, fresh air. :) --Virgil Vaduva 12:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Book List and Website List

message: I agree fully with Virgil.  
Dee Dee Warren 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minutae in variations 

message: It would seem appropriate to have some mention of the notion or concept of "double fulfillment or double reference" in an article on partial or full preterism. Prophetic mention of the "abomination of desolation" has more than one reference in the Jewish mind. They were all aware of Antiochus Epiphanies. There is the prophetic reference to Titus. Could there be one yet to come? I'm sure that there are many theologians adopting some combination of the preterist and futurist viewpoints, immediate predictions that will be echoed in the end times.  209.191.208.162 10:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please include some mention of double fulfillment 

message: I am stunned that no one will actually provide the well established history of Futurism and Praeterism in Western Christian thought. Both Positions are products of the Society of Jesus in their efforts to win the Historicist Amillennial arguments with the Reformed and Evangelical Protestants. These two views are innovations of the Counter-Reformation established by the Council of Trent. Neither view has any historicity in Pre-Reformation Latin Christian Thought, nor in the Teachings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Apologists, Fathers, Synods and the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. Both Views anachronistically interpret select passages of this Undivided and Universal Tradition...though both reject their Authority. This is done in order to find some historicity for their views to cover the fact that the Printing Press has more antiquity. 
Praeterism did not even exist in Protestanntism until the middle 17th Century...and it was adopted and adapted by Arian Unitarians and Universalists, and these authors eventually recanted their Praeterism as not reflected in the proper exegesis of the totality of Scripture. Both Counter- Reformation Praterism and Futurism have only taken root in Protestant Circles since the early 19th Century...with Praeterism being held by a minute fringe element of the Reformed Tradition and other non-Confessional Restorationist Movement groups, such as a small element of the Church of Christ. 
Historicist Historic Pre-Millennialism was the predominant position of the Ante-Nicene Era. In the Nicene Era it was challenged by the Classical Historicist A-Millennialists, and it soon became a minority position in the Graeco-Semitic Eastern Churches and completely suppressed in the Latin-Gothic Western Church. Thus the Historicist View exists in two forms since Nicaea I onward in the Eastern Churches. The rival Historicist Views where the dominant view of the Catholic and Protestant Churches, which were both A-Millennialist. 
Latin Futurism and Praeterism did not appear until the late 16th and early 17th Century....far too late to be considered part of Historic Christian Eschatology. Neither views were espoused by any of the Reformers, and many Confessional Reformed and Confessional Evangelical Churches reject both views as Latinate derivations and not part of their spiritual and confessional Theology. 
So....if anyone actually wants to be honest about the late history of the  Praeterist view...please correct your Article to reflect these historical facts. Do so in an unbiased fashion so as not to be dismissive of this history or to argue it away. If Physicians are making sure the Medical articles are correct and factual....Christians who are Reconstructionists (Praeterist) or Dispensationalists (Futurists) should at least be as frank and as honest as well.    Priestly1@hotmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.125.106 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Preterism 

message: The article claims:
'Expositors of the traditional protestant interpretation of Revelation known as historicism have always maintained that Revelation was written in AD 96 and not AD 70.'
This isn't true.  Over the centuries Historicists have accepted both dates.  It was only as a result of Praterism emerging in the 17th century that the early date started to be rejected by Historicists, in order to remove support for the Praeterist position.  As late as 1727 Sir Isaac Newton had argued that Revelation was written during the persecutions of Nero, but by the mid-19th century this theory was being completely dismissed, and Elliott’s description of it as ‘the baseless presumption of a Neronic date’ (Horae Apocalypticae, volume IV, 5th edition 1862), was typical of the later Historicist attitude generally expressed.  Still, even at this time there were Historicists who believed in an early date.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Preterism versus Historicism

message: I was surprised to see Irenaeus listed as a proponent of Preterism.  Having recently completed a commentary on the Book of Revelation (cited as one of the references), I appealed to several passages in Irenaeus (Against Heresies, v.xxx and v.xxviii.2) to show he explicitly expects Antichrist to be a future figure who had not yet arrived on the stage of history. My understanding of Preterism is that both full and partial preterists consider the beast of Revelation to have been a historic figure, most often Nero of Roman times.  The evidence I see in Irenaeus would seem to place him squarely in the camp of Futurism, not Preterism.
The citations I refer to from Irenaeus can be found online here too:
http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/topics/nero.html#4.12.2.4
TonyG (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irenaeus a Preterist? 

message: Something ought to be resolved concerning the Anti-Semitic implications of Preterism.  Historically, such thinking has negatively impacted society.  Fascistic tendencies in religion must be identified whenever and wherever possible.  Preterism creates a favorable climate for Anti-Semitism.  It teaches that Israel was a "harlot" destroyed by God in A.D. 70, and that the Christian church 'replaced' Israel.  These claims cannot be substantiated by the Scriptures.  Moreover, such teaching frustrates Judeo-Christian relations, and demeans the dignity of the Jewish people.--Orthodox45 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't the place for doing something about this (even if it is a genuine issue, which I disagree). Further, this article defines what Preterism is, not to cast judgement upon it. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the section stating that the majority of preterists see Jerusalem as the Harlot instead of Diocletan is unsourced, and counter to most of the preterist sources I've seen.  Looking further, the Partial preterism article appears to be a POV-coatrack article to hide a horrible sourcing job.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Semitic Bias 

message: This entire section needs to be more robust.  At presen tit looks too much like personal comment.  It's not NPOV, and it needs proper citations and references.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections Based On Canonical Argument 

message: I would like to see a more accurate representation of the terms.  The words preterism/preterist did not originally refer to what has come to be know as "full preterism".  The original terms defined what is now erroneously called "partial-preterism".  This revisionism of terms would be like someone claiming a Calvinist who believed that since people are elected by God without freewill, there is no reason to evangelize should be called "full Calvinists", whereas the traditional Calvinists should be called "partial-Calvinists".  Rather, the term "hyper" in a theological sense means to "go beyond original scope or intent".  Thus, a person who believes we should no longer evangelize is often correctly termed a "Hyper-Calvinist", so too should a preterist who has gone beyond the original scope & intent of historic preterism be rightly called a "Hyper-Preterist" -- there is no pejorative intent in the labels -- it is just correct grammatical definition.  As it presently stands, this entry has been unduly biased to misrepresent the true history of these terms.  Please work to correct this or otherwise the reputation of Wiki as a place with biased entries will continue. Roderick E (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Orthodox45's take on the non-biased approach to this article, an issue which is creeping out every so often; this is not the first time attempts have been made to tamper with the article in order to remove Wikipedia:NPOV content (see history and Talk:Preterism for details), which is really against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Let's not forget about Wikipedia:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and that Wikipedia:NPOV is critical to the quality of the content.  The purpose of the article is not to promote either side of Preterism - the purpose of the article is to present a balanced article to the audience, regardless of theology, philosophy or religion.  --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet clearly both Orthodox45 & Vaduva are BOTH Hyperpreterists -- you can't have a NPOV when you have no other view represented.  Remember, Vaduva was the one who ACTUALLY tried to trademark the term Preterism (see source at US Trademarks office:  ) & he is the same person that threatened legal action against Wikipedia if it didn't let him dictate the Preterism entry, so he is the last person to claim he is NPOV. Roderick E (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Roderick, cool it!  You obviously have an issue with what Orthodox45 and Virgil are doing.  And that's fine.  But let's not have your also obvious hatred for Mr. Vaduva pour over into Wikipedia.  Thank you. -Charleca (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop?  Already? I was enjoying a classic example of what editing on Wikipedia is all about.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just stating a FACT.  When you have people who are from one position dominating the editing, you will have a distorted representation.  Add to that the FACT that Vaduva DID attempt to trademark the term & you really have the LEAST NPOV you can get.  This Preterism entry has been a distortion the whole time it has existed.  P.S.  Charleca, you're a hyperpreterist too right?  More NON-NPOV.  Roderick E (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Roderick E., As you see, the consensus is against you.  Would it hurt you much if I said I wasn't even a Preterist???  I could care less about your personal terminology.  But when you enforce it upon others, that is clearly not NPOV.  Calling Full Preterism "Hyper" reveals your own bias.  Why don't you prove that it's hyper on your own websites and blogs, by doing the detailed exgetical work, instead of expecting people to take your word for it.  I'm sure Full Preterists would love to see you defend your position openly.  Futurists could use your same argument to show that P.P. is 'hyper'.  But that wouldn't fly with you, would it?? Then please stop trying to push your slanted opinions on others.  The public does not have to tolerate this behavior. --Orthodox45 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Roderick E has a pretty well-established history of bullying other users here and pushing an agenda alone against Wikipedia:Consensus; he often invokes personal attacks and personal matters in order to intimidate other editors and establish his biased point. In fact, anyone who frequents this article knows very well that he is guilty of violating every rule from Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, Wikipedia:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information, Wikipedia:HUSH#User_space_harassment, and of course ultimately Wikipedia:Consensus.  I anticipate that once confronted with a consensus editing decision here, he will leave for a while and return a year or so from now trying to do this all over again, violating all the points I just referenced above.  His Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules approach caused the article to be closed for edits previously, so this is a familiar sight with Roderick E --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So bringing up the FACT that this entry is dominated by one point of view AND the FACT that one of the main editors actually tried to trademark the term AND the FACT that this same guy has threatened to sue Wikipedia if he didn't get his way, is somehow NOT relevant???  Plus how is it a fair "consensus" if as has been demonstrated, the majority if not all of the editors of this entry are presently of one point of view.  It would be like having the Nazi party write an entry on the SS & if someone opposed the claims of the entry, being over-ruled by a "consensus" of the Nazi editors. Roderick E (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appealing to Godwins_law or taking the Reductio_ad_Hitlerum approach will not distract any of us from your biased edit attempts of Preterism.  Nice try though. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Virgil, my analogy was NOTHING like what that 1990 "law" entails.  My comment was valid.  An example of using a REAL Reductio_ad_Hitlerum would be something like mentioning you are a Romanian who thinks that fighting for "freedom" is equal to your teen-age years of throwing rocks & bottles at your communist overseers.  You haven't been in America long enough to understand that fighting for freedom is NOT riotous punks in the street.  See, THAT is more like Reductio_ad_Virgilum (see I can make up "laws" too) Sheeesh.  Roderick E (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Guys, please use the Talk page for discussion about the article - not your egos. -Charleca (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper terminology 

message: Please read this assessment of Roderick Edwards and his Wikipedia entries: http://www.thekingdomcame.com
::The above mentioned website was started anonymously & cowardly by Virgil Vaduva, the same guy who not only tried to actually trademark the word "preterism" (see link) but he actually threatened to sue Wikipedia unless it allowed him to dictate the Preterism article (see link).  If anyone has questions about the content of the website, please feel free to email me: 
::P.S. notice that the website gives no reference links to the things it says -- that is because Vaduva purposely doesn't want anyone to know the context. Roderick E (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant editorializing by Roderick Edwards 

message: It's quite telling that attempts to show the connection between Hyper-Preterism and Universalism are being suppressed on this forum.  This info needs to get out to the public.  It is no coincidence that many of the foremost leaders of Hyper-Preterism are Universaliststic in their teachings.--Brian Simmons (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, I don't think anyone here is interesting in your propagandistic comments.  I want to present a fair article on Preterism to readers, not an article on Universalism.  Can you please explain why Universalism needs to be referenced in the article and why this is relevant?  Also, can you please provide a list of writings and references as to how "many" or "most" preterists are "universalists?"  I would be happy to second your changes but you are purposefully using Wikipedia:WEASEL words in order to avoid explaining yourself.  This is why the Talk page on an article exists; so I am listening. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Brian, even if I grant you that point, you still cannot deduce what you want to deduce; this is nothing but speculation and goes against Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, and Universalism predates any hint of Preterism among Christians, starting all the way back with Origen.  I would have no problem with inserting a passage on Universalism in the article, but it's a serious strain and that is not the point of the article.  Not only that, but you would have to go into greater depth as far as disambiguation goes and explain which kind of Universalism you are talking about, which denomination you are discussing, and what theological approach you are taking here when discussing Universalism per se.  And again, that is not the point of the article.  In fact, even the way it is now, in my opinion the article deals with too much unnecessary stuff to begin with, as I already pointed out several times.  On a second point, I am not controlling anything - this is an article which has arrived where it is as a result of collaboration.  You just created your Wikipedia account less than 48  hours ago apparently in order to make this single change to the article.  Now judging by other material I found written by you, and by the fact that your activity on Wikipedia is focused solely on this one entry, makes me think that your presence here is not primarily due to an interest in bettering the Wikipedia community; instead you are here to condemn Preterism, which also goes against Wikipedia:MORALIZE; to quote from the policy: "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide."  That is against the guidelines of this forum and therefore you cannot expect me and other editors to simply let you modify the entry however you wish to modify it.  Please stick to the point of the article so we can all work together in improving the content.  This is not a place to host theological disagreements and debates, or a place where you can prove Preterism wrong.--Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: If it's not a big deal then you should be able to provide enough evidence to prove the missing link between Preterism and Universalism; so far I am not aware of any such evidence, otherwise all Preterists would be Universalists, and that is simply not factual.  The few Preterists who are Universalists were already Universalists before they embraced Preterism.  Also, you just said above that Preterism was borne out of early American Universalism.  If that is true, how do you explain that many of the early Christian theologians were Universalists?  Are you saying they were Preterists too?  And why is it that most Universalists have never even heard of Preterism and do not hold to a Preterist eschatology?  Your suggestions make absolutely no sense and I cannot imagine how another editor would agree to your editing suggestions, unless you will present some evidence that nobody is aware of.  --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, any news on this Universalism-Preterism connection, so we can update the article accordingly? --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Preterism's Universalistic Bias 

message: In additional to things already discussed above, there are several other issues which need to be resolved with this article
: 1. The proponents list is nonsensical and out of place.  Does the article need to have a proponents list, and what value does the list bring to the entry?  In my opinion, near to none; the list should be removed altogether.
: 2. The "Preterism vs. ..." sections could be made more succinct and could be combine into one sub-header that does not sound as negative as what is currently there.  Again, this entry is about Preterism, not about Historicism or Futurism.
: 3. Also, I am not sure why the "Preterist Divisions" section is there.  It could also use improvement as it sounds broken-up and much of the content does not read smoothly.
--Virgil Vaduva (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of issues here.  Firstly you didn't quote anything from Abauzit's actual work which proves that it wasn't a Full Preterist work.  Secondly the quote from Abauzit you provided was written much later than his ‘Essai sur l'Apocalypse'.  Thirdly you left in the quote from Moses Stuart which says it was.  Fourthly you didn't actually address the reference from Moses Stuart, which demonstrates that Abauzit's work was the first of a series of derivative Full Preterist works.  You even left in the reference to Stuart, and simply claimed that it says something else.  I suspect you don't actually have either Abauzit's work or Stuart's (I do).  Would that be correct? Fifthly, although your quotation of Lange to support Abauzit's recanting of Full Preterism is valid, your quotation of Townley to support Townley's recantation of Full Preterism isn't (a third party source is required).  Finally, you didn't provide a reliable source to demonstrate that Townley's was 'The earliest known work which would strictly qualify as contemporary "full preterism"', or that 'it was another 115 years before an actual full preterist work arose'.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional article improvements 

message: I can see an edit war approaching with the proponents/opponents topic.  Honestly, I don't see any encyclopedic value by having either present.  Both sections should be removed. -charleca (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nothing new - every few months, the whacko Anon from Indianapolis comes back here with nothing else to do and decides to waste everyone else's time with the same edit...nothing new. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blooming edit war 

message: Matthew 24:14 "And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole inhabited earth for a testimony to all the nations and then the end will come."
Some say it has been fulfilled but regardless of any non-Revelation support which is [?insert here?] what about in Revelation such events as Rev. 8:8-12, 16:18-21, 21:1-2 have not yet happened?  Since the end-time events haven't happened the precursor event of the Gospel being preached to the WHOLE earth hasn't been completed.  
 
One may draw all kinds of type, shadow, and figure fulfillments but the real fulfillment must bring the real end time events.
75.139.214.136 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can Preterists believe Matt. 24:14 has been fulfilled? 

message: A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place.
Skinrider (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Eschatology-oriented edits

message: This entry is one of the most biased entries on wikipedia as its main author, hyperpreterist Virgil Vaduva threatened to sue wikipedia if it did not let him dictate the entry; falsely claiming he owned a trademark on the word "preterism". See here: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78224061&action=Request+Status  Further, there is scant to no mention of Max King in the history which is important since King has repeatedly claimed to be the founder/creator/originator of the belief.  See here: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-bad-to-worse-hyperpreterisms-coc.html  Vaduva has merely made this entry a propaganda piece for his own agenda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.107.152 (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: New stuff goes at the bottom, do not delete other's comments.  According to the link you provided (which does not mention Wikipedia), the request was abandoned, and Wikipedia regards all attempts to own articles as unacceptable.  Virgil Vaduva appears to be only one editor among many, he hasn't editted in months (almost years), and the most drastic action taken in the article I can find is the removal of a proponents list.  I'm finding your claims hard to beleive or understand.  The word Preterism is older than the English language, and the belief dates back to the early church, so the claim about Max King sounds implausible.  Also, blogspot pages are not reliable sources since any monkey with a keyboard can make them.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopelessly biased 

message: It's unsourced (and counter to most of the stuff I've read), and the main article for it is a POV coat rack. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking the Partial Preterism section 

message: The Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, did not occur in the partial preterist system. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article pretty much says that already. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Second Coming and the Resurrection of the Dead did not occur in the partial preterist system 

message: The second paragraph begins "Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus tells the disciples that none of them would taste death until the second coming)..." and cites an external source. However, the verse in question and the external citation do not agree with the quoted paragraph. The verse states that some would not taste death until they saw "..the Son of man coming in his kingdom." ( KJV - other translations read similar; see: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A28&version=ESV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:28&version=NIV ) - the end of the verse could be interrupted variously while the Wikipedia article implies a less ambiguous text.
The article should probably be edited to read: "Full preterists argue that a literal reading of Matthew 16:28 (where Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw him coming in his kingdom)..." or similar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.75.19 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked at this again and the edit was made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preterism&diff=465539300&oldid=465536682 - it looks like a simple mistake by an editor covering a lot of ground at once. Correcting it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.75.19 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in "Schools of preterist thought > Full preterism" 

message: Healinglvs has been adding unsourced material using his both his account and his IP address.
The material does not cite any sources, even though he says "adding source" in this edit summary.
 are you or are you not interested in operating within this site's policies and guidelines?  It looks like you could make valuable contributions -- if you'd pay attention to help from others! Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: New additions go at the bottom.  Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website or book.  Wikipedia does not care about imagined personal authority, it only cite professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.  If you bothered to pay attention to the guidelines I sent you, you'd know how to add footnotes. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And what do you mean by "I haven't been on here in years"...?  Did you have a previous account? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Once again, new talk page additions go at the bottom.  If you aren't capable of understanding that simple instruction, how can we trust you to write a credible source? ;P  Seriously though, Vision publishing ("Making writers dreams come true") sounds a lot like a "pay-to-print" publisher, which we do not accept.  And again, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Preterism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112104451/http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Whore_of_Babylon.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looks like this topic could be covered at existing article with better context. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has no sourced content. If any can be found, merge. Otherwise, it should be deleted. —Confession0791 talk 02:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the article remain here for reading purposes while it's being sourced since the Preterist camp have the schism for ten plus years. See sample list of Preterism views here —Transformium (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Pauline Preterism]] into [[Preterism]]