Talbotites Caught Red-Handed

Sam Frost and Jason Bradfield are accused of viewing the recent Don Preston/Joel McDurmon debate online without paying the $80.00 fee.  The account is that Preston offered that people who could not attend in person could pay and obtain a password to view live-streaming of the debate. Per the offer, Preston specifically stated:

"By purchasing the live-stream webcast of the PPW Event, I agree not to give out my unique user password which will be used to access the live-feed. This means that you will only use the password to display the live-feed web broadcast for those people or groups who are physically present and watching with you. This policy will be based on a personal accountability metric. In other words, God knows!" -- source

Apparently, Frost and Bradfield somehow logged in without payment and were eventually kicked out of the "room" by the administrator; Joseph Vincent.  This is further confirmed by Frost himself who says in a post-debate podcast with McDurmon:

"Jason and I, you know we were in the, we were watching it online and then uh. I think it was live-stream and then they have a chat room and it was Joseph Vincent that was running the whole thing. Which he was there at the conference, running the whole...[McDurmon interjects]: Yeah I was wantin' wantin' you guys to tell this...this story. [Frost continues]: Well, we were just, you know, we got, both of us. Well, I did, I don't know if Jason, but we got banned. I got banned." -- mp3 clip (complete source @ 36:46-37:05)

So, Frost fully admits something caused him to get banned from viewing the live-stream of the debate.  However he says in the podcast that he listened to at least 90% of the debate online.

Introduction to Preterism: The Book

I have been working on a book on Preterism for some time now. I'd like to share the introduction with my readers. There is more to the book, but this is just a taste of it so far.

Roderick Edwards spent 15 years within the Full or Hyper-Preterist movement. His writings while all online were very profuse and varied on topics many Preterist writers never thought to consider; such as the validity of pastors if indeed the Chief Shepherd came in AD70.

Edwards always held a strained relationship with many of the “leaders” within the movement because of his propensity to push the theory of Hyper-preterism to its logical conclusions.

In about 2007, Edwards officially renounced Hyper-preterism and began trying to undo some of the damage he has done. This has made him an enemy not only of the Hyper-preterists, but also of many of the so-called “Partial-Preterists” whom he points to as having aided in the advancement of Hyper-preterism.
This book will give the reader a clear, and honestly critical view not only of Hyper-preterism but of Preterism in general and how it is affecting and will affect Christianity in general.

ENDORSEMENTS:

“Roderick Edwards is the most vicious critic of Full Preterism to date” – Samuel Frost; ex-Hyper-Preterist circuit speaker.

Sam Frost Gets A New Leash

Supposed ex-hyperpreterist Sam Frost, known for his pandering and his "dancing bear" routines where he does whatever his handlers say; be it Jason Bradfield (who Sam would have no Internet voice without), or Ken Talbot, or Virgil Vaduva, or now Dee Dee Warren (not her real name btw).  On July 17, 2012; Warren more or less tried to leash Frost by telling him to no longer interact with his former hyperpreterists who bring FACTUAL comments against Frost.  Warren said:

"Sam there is nothing of value there, I no longer read it. That is another reason I am reposting some of the back catalog, to give readers something more useful than the pretcosmos nonsense.

You don’t have to defend yourself against them, nothing will ever be enough. I think it is more than high time to remember the second part of the proverbs, do not answer a fool according to his folly.

On the rare occasion there is something worth responding to, I will do so, and for those occasions I let my ever vigilant friends let me know. My inbox has been very empty of suggestions which means, as usual, empty-headed posts from them." -- http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=21#comment-19931

How is analyzing the words of hyperpreterist Sam Frost "nonsense"? Shouldn't Frost have to interact with his 15 years of hyperpreterist promotion? Shouldn't he have to do some work to undo all the damage he has done or is Warren telling him to stay on his leash like a good little pet?  I mean, Warren apparently thinks she is the more balance, as she "ahem" only responds on the "rare occasion there is something worth responding to".  Frost apparently needs to have Warren's ability and insight.  Eventually the  pet will obey the master and follow her lead.  I always like how almost all of Dee Dee's posts always come back to her.  This one about how she behaves and how her friends do and how her email inbox is or isn't. Mee-Mee Warren strikes again.

UPDATE: Shortly after this video was posted here, theological fascist Dee Dee Warren disabled the embed ability.  I guess she can't handle criticism.



After you watch the video, tell me if this is not the sheer example of a person in love with themselves -- classic narcissist.

Are Hyperpreterists "Conservative"?

After an exchange with hyperpreterist writer, John Noe I was reminded of a descriptor Noe uses in his biography. On most of Noe's books and materials he is described as follows:

"John Noe (pronounced "No-ee") is president of the Prophecy Reformation Institute, a conservative, evangelical scholar, and a member of the Evangelical Theological Society." -- source

Besides the humor of these men, such as Noe and Don Preston starting one-man "institutes" and such and declaring themselves the "president", notice that Noe claims he is a "conservative".  Well, he might be politically conservative or some other sort of conservative, but he is not a theological conservative. Hyperpreterism by its very definition is radicalism; a departure from "conserving", sustaining and maintaining the status quo.

I have broached this issue with Noe, hoping it was merely an oversight on his part and not an intentional misrepresentation. But Noe, in spite of the FACT he is proposing views that radically depart from historical Christianity, continued to claim he is a theological conservative.  So, now it is an obligation to point out that Noe is indeed misrepresenting himself to Christians.

Is John Noe Smarter Than You?

John Noe has been a staple within the hyperpreterist movement.  He came onto the scene when Ed Stevens helped him publish "Beyond the Endtimes: The Rest of... the Greatest Story Ever Told" in 1999.  However, Noe's earlier but less known book was published a year before: "Top Ten Misconceptions about Jesus’ Second Coming and the End Times" Besides Partial-Preterist Gary DeMar's books which many "Full Preterists" cite as their gateway into the movement, Noe's books were some of the earliest offerings that an aspiring hyperpreterist could obtain.

Noe went on to pen other hyperpreterist books such as:

Partial Preterists Sell The Farm

Whenever you see a Partial-Preterist, such as Gary DeMar arguing with a Dispensationalist over eschatology; you will notice that the Partial-Preterist uses almost the exact (if not the exact) same proof-texts that a Full Preterist uses to "prove" hyperpreterism.  The Partial-Preterist will point out to the Dispensationalist that "near" means "near" and "soon" means "soon".  They will point out that the first-century Christians expected "the end" to come within their life times.

But when a Partial-Preterist dusts up with a Full Preterist, suddenly they say that the Full Preterist goes too far.  Who gets to decide how far is too far?

AD70.Net is Done?

Back in December 2010 this site considered that the hyperpreterist Internet "radio" station, AD70.net was failing. (source) The funding was sporadic and the idea that the station "owner", Mike Loomis could maintain the "station" while OBVIOUSLY neglecting his family...because of the time he was putting into it -- made the prediction that AD70.net would fail.  It is a noble thing to try to follow through with a noble dream and obviously will require some sacrifice -- for that I do not begrudge Loomis, although promoting hyperpreterism isn't noble. He was certainly following a dream, one that he had told us had been inspired by a man named Phil Naessens.  We have seen that Naessens has been destructive to other individuals (source), so that Loomis' misguided dream was inspired by Naessens is no small point.

But now Loomis has announced that he has lost everything over his misguided dream.  Loomis lost his finances and his wife. (source)  He says in his announcement:

"And quite frankly guys...I'm glad I'm at the end of my rope. And I'm not going to ask you guys for anything more. You've all done great helping keep P.R. on the air this long."

All my years in opposition to men like Loomis hasn't been so I could pat myself on the back or boast in proving them wrong.  It is sad to see things come to this end.  Maybe had men like Naessens spent less time validating Loomis, the misguided dream that destroyed Loomis' life would not have been "on the air this long".  I hold men like Naessens, Ken Talbot and other such compromisers and enablers directly responsible for the destruction of people's lives.  They toy with them as much as if they were toying with a drug addict instead of actually helping them.