text:
Talk:Preterism/Archive 2

Joint Proposed Article
Okay Mike (full preterist) and I have worked together on this piece and have come to an agreement that although the piece says some negative things about both of our positions, it accurately reflects the state of things how they are. Neither he or I will say that we got absolutely everything that we wanted – it is a compromise position in the spirit of the wiki. We struggled a bit with having to succinctly define the orthodox view of the resurrection so as not misdefine it nor to make it seem as if full preterists are denying something that they are not (ie they are not saying that death is the end). Also the definition part is a compromise. Both of us feel that our position bears the right to “preterism” but we recognize that there are divergent definitions out there, and popular use doesn’t support either of our positions – we would say then that the popular use is sloppy, but the Wiki readers would be most educated to understand how they are going to encounter this word, not how we would like to change the popular use to be more in conformity to what we think is right. Mike will add more observations as to his thoughts.

We both intend to be adding lists of books and authors to the reference section as well as supplementing both of our positions with a few more Scripture references. I do not believe there will be any controversy on those fronts and anticipate that such will just be added to the article with a note placed in discussion that it was done.

Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which deals with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days (or End Times) prophecies in varying degrees. The term preterism is derived from the word preterite, or past perfect tense; it also has its roots in the Latin word præter, meaning "past." Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists.

Preterist eschatology, however, is not monolithic. There are two major schools of Preterist thought: Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. These different schools of Preterism have been described in various ways. Some adherents of Partial Preterism call their own pposition orthodox preterism to designate its conformity to the historic, ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church (in contrast to Full Preterism). Other labels for Partial Preterism include classical preterism and moderate preterism. Adherents of Full Preterism prefer either full preterism or consistent preterism in an appeal to its claim that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD; as such, Full Preterists believe Partial Preterists are inconsistent in their method of biblical interpretation.

There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, the first being a variation of Partial Preterism which places fulfillment of some eschatological passages in the first three centuries, culminating in the fall of Rome. A second variation of Preterism can be found in certain liberal schools of thought which hold that the the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation. However, according to this school, these prophecies never came to pass, thus proving the non-inspiration of the biblical text and the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

Partial Preterism
Partial Preterism holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled at or about the year AD 70 when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices.

Most, but not all, Partial Preterists also believe the term Last Days refers not to the last days of planet Earth or the last days of humankind, but rather to the last days of the Mosaic covenant which God had exclusively with national Israel until the year AD 70. As God came in judgment upon various nations in the Old Testament, Christ also came in judgment against those in Israel who rejected him. The "last days," however, are to be distinguished from the "last day," which is considered still future and entails Jesus Christ's Second Coming, the Resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous dead physically from the grave in like-manner to Jesus' physical resurrection, the Final Judgment, and the creation of a New Heavens and a New Earth free from the curse of sin and death which was brought about by the fall of Adam. Partial Preterists believe that the new creation comes in redemptive progression as Christ reigns from His heavenly throne, subjugating his enemies, and will eventually culminate in the destruction of physical death, the "last enemy" (1 Cor 15:20-24).

Full Preterism
Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming. This view holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a bodily return, but rather a "return" manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the resurrection of the dead did not entail the raising of the bio-physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead," known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek). As such, the righteous dead obtained a spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire. Some Full Preterists believe this judgment is ongoing and takes effect upon the death of each individual (see Heb. 9:27). The New Heavens and the New Earth are also equated with the consummation of the New Covenant in AD 70 and are to be viewed in the same manner by which a Christian is considered a "new creation" upon his or her conversion.

Influences of Preterism within Christian Thought
Partial Preterism is, by all measures, a minority view within American Christianity and meets with significant vocal opposition from the prevailing Dispensationalist (or Futurist) view. Partial Preterism, however, is generally recognized as falling within the pale of historic orthodoxy as it affirms all items of the eucemenical Creeds of the Church. Still, concerns are expressed by Dispensationalists that Partial Preterism logically leads to an acceptance of Full Preterism -- the concern of which is denied by Partial Preterists.

Full Preterism is viewed by many (but not all) as heretical. Many of those who would condemn this view claim to do so not only upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), but also from biblical passages that they interpret to condemn a past view of the resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection/transformation of the body, doctrines which many Christians (but not all) believe to be an essential doctrine of the faith.

Adherents of Full Preterism, however, dispute this assertion by claiming that any biblical condemnation of a past resurrection was written during a time in which the resurrection was yet future (i.e., pre-AD 70) as well as claiming different interpretations of other proffered biblical passages. Furthermore, Full Preterists reject the authority of the Creeds to condemn their view, stating that the Creeds were written by uninspired and fallible men and are simply in error on this point. A rapidly growing movement, there has been a strong push by Full Preterists for acceptance as another valid Christian view; however, to date, no major conservative denomination or group has officially accepted this view as normative.

Preterism vs. Futurism
Like most theological disputes, the divide between Preterism (both Partial and Full) and its opposite, Futurism, is over how certain passages of scripture should be interpreted. Futurists assert that Preterists have spiritualized prophecies they see as describing literal, visible events, whereas Preterists believe that Futurists do not take certain passages such as Matthew 16:23 literally enough and do not give sufficient weight to scriptures that seem to show that the first century Church believed that a major eschatological event would certainly take place in their lifetime. Many "time texts" in the New Testament indicate this, such as: Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 24:34, Matt. 26:64, to name a few. Full Preterists would assert that there are passages which also place the Second Coming and Resurrection at that time.

See also: prophetic futurism prophetic historicism

Proponents of Partial Preterism

 * http://www.americanvision.org
 * http://www.tektonics.org
 * http://www.preteristlist.com

Proponents of Full Preterism

 * http://www.Preterism.com
 * http://planetpreterist.com
 * http://www.preteristarchive.com
 * http://www.livingpresence.org
 * http://members.tripod.com/~kendavies/index.html
 * http://www.preterist.org
 * http://www.Preterism-eschatology.com
 * http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com
 * http://www.eschatology.org

Critics of Preterism

 * http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/august99.htm
 * http://www.apocalipsis.org/Preterism.htm
 * http://www.thingstocome.org
 * http://www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

Category:Christian eschatology

Dee Dee Warren

I suggest you post this Dee Dee. You should remember though that there is no such thing as a finished version on Wikipedia so you can expect further edits to the article from other contributors. But this looks good (although I have no knowledge in this area as I've said before) -- sannse (talk) 22:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay I know Mike had wanted to post some comments as well but that would not affect the posting of the article that we both agreed upon.

Dee Dee Warren

New Intro
Hi Dee Dee, I think your new intro is good. However, I worry that it was written with the current naming arguments too much in mind, and not so much with the aim of explaining the term and the various positions. Partial Preterism is introduced, but only as a name, and with the note that it is named such in contrast to Full Preterism. We don't see what it does stand for, though. Full Preterism's position is explained, but the note that they belive PP's to be inconsistant is again confusing as you haven't stated their position. Also, I'd change the line starting with "Adherents of Full Preterism prefer either Full Preterism or Consistent Preterism in an appeal to its claim...", as, again, this is describing the FP's as arguing for a name, instead of a position.

I think that it's good, but really the arguments on this Talk Page shouldn't make one think that the introduction is to be why the groups are named the way they are. Rather, the main focus shoud be about what the two groups believe, with a secondary emphasis on naming. I think this point is slightly brushed aside at the moment. — Asbestos | Talk 00:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow
Hey Abestos - Mike and I both worked on that new intro, and I have to confess I don't follow..... eek! Can you maybe post a revision so I can get an idea what you mean? I read it again, and still don't see the defect...

Dee Dee Warren 03:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

That's One Small Step for Prets, One Giant Leap for Pret-Kind
Of course, writing the first stages of a Wiki entry on Preterism is nowhere near as sensational as putting a man on the moon ... but it could be more important. So much for humility, eh?

I want to publicly thank Dee Dee for her invaluable assistance in writing this entry. I am hoping that my Full Preterist brothers and sisters will understand what I've attempted to do in this (historic?) collaboration. One of the great things about working with Dee Dee on this is that we were able to put down the theological fists and step back a bit to objectively view our respective positions, regardless of the light in which we found them. There is nothing to fear in truth; indeed, there is everything to gain.

By no means, however, is this entry complete. Both Dee Dee and I have plans to make it better: some additional Scripture references (not too heavy though), a recommended reading list, and some expansions on the varied beliefs within Preterism. We will continue to e-mail each other with suggestions, and I would love to see others do the same without resorting to what I call a "Wiki-war." The best thing to do, if you want to add or change something, is post it here on the Discussion page, or e-mail us.

As a sidenote, I'm editing the latest entry to fix up some typos that squeaked through the collaborative process (changing "bio-physical" to something else), and to eliminate a repeated paragraph (Preterism within Christian Thought was posted twice).

If anyone wishes to dialogue with me regarding this entry, feel free to e-mail me at InerrantWord@aol.com.

Mike Beidler 04:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mike
This was an interesting project and I thank Mike for contacting me. In the midst of the rhetoric, there are always times and places to call a "truce" and work together on necessary projects in which our battles are not the interest. The Wiki is such a place. I am going to take a bit of a breather to see what comments or objections if any are raised to this piece - and then add some limited Scriptural citations. Perhaps some other orthodox pret that comes along might want to take that on. I would think the adding of Scripture to our respective "sections" should be pretty noncontroversial. My email address before it gets lost in the shuffle is preteristlist@gmail.com - I welcome non-combative emails on this Wiki, not to have personal theological debates over our position - which is exactly how Mike initially wrote me, it seems like ages ago.

Dee Dee Warren 14:54, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Some versus Many
I see that an anon poster has changed many to some. That is simply not accurate. Mike and I discussed this very issue and agreed as an objective review of the facts, that it is indeed many. If need be, I can produce reams of data that prove this point. The anon poster would be hard-pressed to post any nonfull pret person of note or credibility that does not view it as heretical. He would have precious few (I can think of two). Now, the anon might say most of my sources are partial pret. So? The sentence deals with the attitude of those who are not full pret. The largest apologetics ministry dealing with abherrant teachings in Christianity has dubbed it so. That is the Christian Research Institute and I can obtain their statement on it if need be. This is simply not an disputable point - it is many, it is not all.

I solicit the Admin's advice. It is hard to deal with an anon poster and I am not trying to start another war. I solicit Mike's input as well.

Dee Dee Warren 20:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

More
For the majority of Christendom, the strictest definition of heresy is departure from the eucemenical creeds - this is one point upon which MANY not some persons are agreed. This has been the case throughout Church heresy. IOW words, while some may expand out the definition of heresy to include other doctrines, most people who hold to the Creeds would agree at a minimum that departure from them would constitute heresy. Now before the red herring is thrown up that no, Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura, that is a truncated view of Sola Scriptura - which was never intended to mean Solo Scriptura - Protestants who believe the Creeds believe they are a shorthand summary of what is in the Bible so no one is denying the authority of the Bible - they believe that the Creeds accurately summarize the essentials of the Biblical faith, thus by definition denial of them is not merely creedally heterodox but Biblically. As another poster here said, it would have been surprising to him if it were not considered heretical. And the fact is that many consider it so. This is simmply not a point of reasonable dispute. It would be like me trying to claim "some think the partial preterist position is incorrect." That is ridiculous. In Christianity, MANY think the partial preterist position is incorrect. We cannot omit or lessen facts just because we don't like them if we are going to factually accurate. We certainly can record the strong defenses against the claims, but we must faithfully report the claims. And "some" is demonstrably inaccurate. I compromised by not insisting upon "most" - and settled in my own mind for "many" which was fair and still accurate. If I had my complete way it would be most.

Dee Dee Warren 11:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Some vs. Many
There may be a way to compromise here. Dee Dee has a point that the "many" really resides within circles that are familiar with preterism. However, as I believe the anon editor is saying, those circles are quite small.

Could we modify thus: "Many within Reformed circles view Full Preterism as heretical."

on some versus many
Hey Mike - I thought about that, but here is the issue - it only communicates what you are trying to say to those who know of this discussion. IOW it makes it seem like this "heresy" question is a uniquely reformed question not that this issue is more well known by Reformed persons - as if there is something in reformed doctrine that makes it so. There is not. I am not Reformed. And while there are quite a few Reformed folks who have made strong statements, I have quite a few from nonReformed folks. Personally I think what is up is most accurate for it carries the implied statement that "of nonadherents who have even heard of it" - obviously someone cannot have an opinion on somethikng they don't even know exists.

Here is the situation

Out of ALL of Christianity (those who have heard of the view, and those who haven't) some think it is heretical (but this is misleading, only some have heard of it to begin with)

Out of only the parts of Christianity who even have a clue about this issue, many think it is heretical.

Or how about we make it a disputed statement or word it without the direct quantifier.

Such as

Full preterism has been viewed as heretical, though not universally.

or something that doesn't quantify but makes it clear it is not absolute

I am not sure, by I think the Reformed suggestion muddies the issue. Most of my Christian circle think it is totally heretical and very few of them are Reformed.

Dee Dee Warren 16:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Some versus Many and the "heresy" paragraph
I am a full preterist and I strongly agree with Dee Dee that the sentence should read "many". In fact, a more informative, truthful, and neutral statement would be...

"Many, regardless of denomination or Christian background, view Full Preterism as heresy."

 * MY RESPONSE:

 * Kalo, I think that is stronger than is necessary for a Wiki. I think it is implied by the simple "many."  Why I am opposed to a weakening of the facts, making the facts overly strong is only going to be a sore point in a collaborative article.  While personally I agree with your statement, I don't think it is necessary to be that strong in a Wiki that will only cause edit wars, when an equally truthful statement would be preferable to all.

 * 65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * REPLY:

 * Dee Dee, you may be correct that this is unnecessary, but there are a number of people who incorrectly think this is primarily a reformed view. No matter what, it should definitely be "many" and not "some". --kalos 14:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This statement does a better job at showing that those who regard Full Preterism as heresy are not limited to any particular group (which is simply the truth). Additionally, the rest of the paragraph should read...

 * MY RESPONSE: While I agree iwth you, the way it said "many" before implied that without needlessly causing disputes.

 * 65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"While many of those who would condemn Full Preterism do so upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), an even greater number do so from biblical passages that they interpret to condemn a past view of the Resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection/transformation of the body, doctrines which many Christians (but not all) believe to be essential to the faith."

 * MY RESPONSE:

 * Hmmm, is it necessary to add that though?

 * 65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notice that I removed the phrase "claim to". I am not sure that it should be out, but the statement seems both clearer and simpler without it. I also replaced one occurrance of the phrase "this view" with "Full Preterism, as "this view" was repeated in the same sentence. I believe that this statement of the basis by which people condemn Full Preterism is more informative. The current version does not communicate that there are a significant number of people who have little or no regard for the creeds (and because of this would not utilize them to condemn anything) but who still condemn Full Preterism based upon biblical considerations.

 * MY RESPONSE:

 * Hmm I would disagree with you there. I don't use the Creeds usually in my statements - however that is not because I don't have any regard for the Creeds, I do, I do so because my opponents have no regard for the Creeds so why waste my breath on something that the other side doesn't recognize? So I heartily disagree, the majoirty of those who do not use the Creeds is not because they have no regard for them, but because that is not the most effective way to go about it - and unfortunately due to a large ignorance of history in the average laity.

 * 65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * REPLY

 * Well, I understand what you are saying, but I just don't like that the current article makes it sound like the majority of Full Preterism's critics use both the creeds and the Bible itself. I am not sure that this is true. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, I don't know. I definitely believe that the phrase "claim to" is unnecessary and that we should avoid using "this view" twice in the same sentence. I would be happy with the article if it was reverted to the "many" version and these minor edits were made. At least for the time being. --kalos 14:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry
I was not logged in above. Sorry! It was me.

Dee Dee Warren 01:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Many etc
Mike, I have been trying to find a better way to word this. I think what we had was the best way to word it. Do you have any other suggestions? It is frustrating that the anon editor has not participated, and since he/she has not cared to, I am inclined to change it back unless we can hash out something else. I have started and stopped several times in trying to craft something which each time seems ackward, and seems obvious like we are trying walk around the elephant in the living room.

Dee Dee Warren 12:56, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

To Kalos
Kalos said: Well, I understand what you are saying, but I just don't like that the current article makes it sound like the majority of Full Preterism's critics use both the creeds and the Bible itself. I am not sure that this is true. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, I don't know. I definitely believe that the phrase "claim to" is unnecessary and that we should avoid using "this view" twice in the same sentence. I would be happy with the article if it was reverted to the "many" version and these minor edits were made. At least for the time being. --kalos 14:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

( ^ UGH, this non-breaking line had made this page virtually unreadable; hence my attempt to correct this HTMLannoyance :S Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 17:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE:

I have no problem with the stylistic issues you raised, that is fine (though the "claim to" was put in to keep with the NPOV of the Wiki). Also you are right that the current roster of full preterist critics do no rely so much upon the Creeds, but it is not because they don't respect their authority - it is because they want to avoid the distraction of having their opponents argue about the validity of the Creeds and have it turn into an argument over the place of tradition, authority, etc. I, like you, am pretty set on the "many" issue as I think it is accurate and no one is served by inaccuracy. In fact I think a sober-minded full preterist would see that their side may seem to be served in the short run but in the long run it only gives ammunition to those who will point to such things as evidence of a lack of forthrightness and spin-doctoring.

So my main concern is the "many" - I have no issue with "this view" being fixed - and the "claim to" was to make sure we keep NPOV.

Let's see what Mike has to say.

Kalo
You are right about the claim to. I was thinking of a different one.

Okay so I have no issue wiwth the "this view" redundancy fix.

I have no issue with the removal of "claim to"

I don't disagree with your insertion into the "many" paragraph on factual grounds. You are in fact correct. I am throwing up the cautionary flag that this WILL cause an edit war. You see already how the lesser statement of "many" did. I think if we three, two full prets, and myself agree upon the original many, since anon has not decided to join the conversation, we would have cause to switch it back and make those stylistic chagnes you suggested.

Dee Dee Warren 18:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Excellent!

 * I agree that the best thing to do is to change "some" to "many" and make those other two minor edits (removing "claim to" an changing "this view" to "Full Preterism"). Thanks Dee Dee. What do you think, Mike? --kalos 19:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mike?
I have not yet heard from Mike. Let's give it a bit, I know he is very busy.

Dee Dee Warren 11:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * No Problem. --kalos 13:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm here! Just wrapped up this semester's last few projects/papers for my Masters ... two more semesters to go!

 * Anyhoo, I suggest: "Although Full Preterism is viewed as heretical by many, this condemnation is by no means universal."

 * I also agree that the second "this view" and "claim to" are unnecessary. Feel free to reedit.

 * Mike Beidler 08:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kalos
What do you think Kalos (sorry for dropping the S before)?

Dee Dee Warren 15:43, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * No problem, Dee Dee. I am fine with what Mike suggested, but "by no means" is informal and for an encyclopedic entry is should probably be replaced with "not", in my opinion. --130.101.14.198 13:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kalos and MIke
Will one of you guys make the changes then? I would prefer it not be me. Also it appears that someone has went in and given a ton of information for the proponents of full preterism cites. I really don't think that is necessary and looks like an advertisement - over the top - for the various sites/ministries (you guys know I don't consider them ministries, but yourselves and the supporters would). Also, honestly, to just go in and do that for one side is inappropriate. If I were to go in and give descriptives for one, I would do so for all. This is not the place for us to be advertising "our side" in such a manner. What happens when I go in and give a descrption for my site? Everyone gets up in arms? This is shameless site plugging and inappropriate. It should be avoided by both sides. This is not our billboard.

Dee Dee Warren 23:09, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Dee Dee,

 * I posted Mike's sentence with my minor edits. I do like it much better now. I don't know who posted the additional links, but I don't understand what is so upsetting about it. How do you know that the person who posted the links propagated "shameless site plugging" and was not simply trying to be informative? Even if this many links is bad wikiquette (I don't know if it is or isn't), don't forget Hanlon's Razor! So what do you want? Fewer Full Preterism links? More Partial Preterism links? I don't have a problem with either. BTW, I am 130.101.14.198 when my session expires. --kalos 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I am the anonymous poster. I have never used Wiki up until this point, but when I saw the similar-named websites listed I thought it would be useful to add a few more well-known sites, and I included the name(s) of the individual(s) behind these and some earlier ones for clarification, not as promotion or "inappropriate shameless site plugging". --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr)

See my response below. My colourful speak was taken much stronger than I intended. I apologize if you were unduly offended that was not my intent. Thank you for posting - some of it was indeed frustration at changes being made without anything posted in talk - thank you for posting again. I woulg suggest you abbreviate the John Anderson information, it does come across as an advertisment - the others, while I think just the links for all concerned are better, if you think the names are helpful in that manner, that is okay with me. I am going to delete the additional information on Tekton, JP has not been affiliated with the Christian bookshelf for nearly seven years now.

Dee Dee Warren 23:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

The reason is because many of the most current resources are coming from individuals whose names are known while their website and/or ministry name is not. Also many of the website "names" are similar - for example only differing with the ending .org or .com or .net, or they have 2 words but one site has "-" between the words while the other has no "-".

Okay, I still think that the names mean nothing to the average Wiki user, those for whom the names mean something already know of the sites. Listen, I am not saying this just for you guys, but the sites that I would promote as well.

Dee Dee Warren 23:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I personally think it would be useful to identify the name of the individual behind every one of the resources listed, wherever possible - including both partial and full preterists, as well as the contrary views that are linked. Again, like I said it is usually the author name that is what people first hear and remember, not the website URL or the name of the ministry. As an example, many people have heard of the radio host and author John MacArthur, but if they saw within a list of URLs a link to only "gty.org" with no clariying name that would not be helpful if a person wanted to investigate what he had to say about a certain theological topic.

I apologize if the impression I have caused is against the "spirit of Wiki"... Feel free everybody to tell me if I have gone against some 'clearly-laid out wiki-standards' - with a link where to look of course, and maybe examples in other topics that have shown why identifying the name behind the URL is such a bad idea. :) rand id terr

Nah, I don't think there are any clear standards on that, I am going from gut. I am very very new here and barely can keep my own postings straight, so I am no Wiki guru. Just my personal opinion o instinct. If everyone disagrees, okay, I will add some stuff to the sites I support (though I see you did some of that, thank you)

Dee Dee Warren 23:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

response
Hey Kalos, thanks for making the changes. Hanlon's Razor applies when there is a possibility of stupidity - I use the Razor quite often. Maybe it is just me but the links IMHO are supposed to be simple reference, not advertisements, but if you guys are fine with it, I will add the descriptives to the other side as well. Notice I wasn't saying one side should have them and not the other, I was saying both should not - this is an encyclopedia style article, you never see such things in an encyclopedia or even in books that have endnotes "for further reference." I can't speak obviously being quite a noob here myself, but I don't think, on a gut level, it is appropriate for a Wiki, which is why I didn't just rush in to put in taglines for the sites I would support. Up to you guys, I just find it very unnecessary - Wiki isn't to advertise anyone's sites. Listen, and I am saying this though I would derive DIRECT benefit from this, after all my site is listed. I am championing a position that denies my own site advertisement.

Dee Dee Warren 18:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi again Dee Dee,

 * First off, I did misunderstand what you were saying. I thought that you were upset that there were so many links under the Full Preterism section, and not under the others. I didn't realize that you were upset about the descriptions (didn't read close enough). Sorry. I don't know whether I think descriptions are helpful or not, but I lean towards not. Still, making assumptions about why someone posts things is a bad idea. The poster has now explained why he or she added the descriptions, and I'll be giving the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that the purpose was to advertise or do anything shamelessly. --kalos 21:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Kalos, point taken - but that is the impression left when it is done for one site and not the other, and there was one specific entry I was referring to, that of John Anderson, which reads like an advertisement. But I am glad the Anon poster posted, things are much better when we can all hear what each other is saying. I apologize for any hasty generalizations. And no I don't have a problem with the number of links - if they are major sites (not some obscure ones) they should be listed. The fact is that there are a whole lot more full pret sites, so it would be silly for me to get upset about that. I didn't like it, so I did what I could - I started my own. But shame on us orthodox prets if we are not as prolific. Also, you don't know me or my mannerisms in person and I am a very colourful person both in words and manner. To me "shamelessly" is a common adjective that I use quite loosely and didn't realize the tremendous negative impact it would have here. I always have to remember that things don't always translate as well electronically.

Dee Dee Warren

Dee Dee Warren 23:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ooops not logged in
That last entry is me.

Dee Dee Warren 23:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Again...
Because my words got jumbled in up there, I did not intend to cause an uproar with "shameless" used above. It really was just for one entry, and I didn't look carefully enough to see that the same volume of infornation was not given for all. Apologies to all concerned - I wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything ~ seems I did pretty good without trying eh?

Dee Dee Warren 23:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * No problem. --kalos 13:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Also no problem :) But I just wanted to make a quick comment re. "John Anderson" appearing like too much of a promotion. The way I see it, in a "For further examination, check out these resources..." type of section, it makes sense to mention a place where both sides (i.e. Partial and Full) have come together for 3 or 4 years, in a public forum, (including callers' questions and objections!), with much of it available in the archives, where the issue and has been debated and discussed topic-by-topic in great detail...
 * Perhaps removal of the reference to "producer of Preterist videos" might be necessary since that might imply promotion of those videos, and they sometimes lean on the "Full" side of things, but hey remember this link IS listed under Full - so I don't think it violates the principle of NPOV by somehow implying Full is the "correct" side simply by stating what I have posted. IMHO.

 * As a reminder, the text in question is...
 * "Voice of Reason" (http://www.LighthouseWorldMinistries.com/broadcast.htm) - a regular radio broadcast hosted by John Anderson (producer of numerous Preterist videos), with a wide variety of guests (mainly from within the Preterist community) representing both full and partial views, as well as the occasional debate with leading futurists (e.g. Thomas Ice, James Jordan).
 * In Christ for Truth, Darren Dirt rand id terr 17:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) <--PS: Why does four-tilde result in an anagram of my name???

This is Dee Dee (I don't have my account information here)
Anon (208 IP) who had stated that he was done participating earlier went in and reversed the changes that Kalos made without coming to discuss here. That is not appropriate in light of the conversation here, and in light of the admins advice to discuss things here first - Kalos do you wish to reverse the changes? I will do so if you like. I will wait a few days to see if Anon (208 IP) decides to re-enter the conversation.

Dee Dee Warren 16:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Dee Dee Warren)

 * Yes, I wish the changes to be reversed. It was much better before. It is silly that anon208 would simply say not everyone agreed when he (or she) was not willing to discuss it first and all who were did agree. Go for it, Dee Dee. --kalos 20:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re. Additions to this "Talk" page
I was just wondering what you guys typically do: Do you just add it to the end and partially-quote what you are responding to?

Or do you respond in the related section, and after all your response make a quick mention at the bottom of what you have added to the discussion?

The reason I am asking is because I am used to using online forums where you can easily see what has been added since the last reading, and of course in the case of Wiki I can look at the "History" of the Talk page, which might not be necessary if there is a common way each of us are adding to this page.

Hope my verbose query makes sense. --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr)

 * I try to respond in the section that I am responding to, unless there are already multiple sections of the same topic. --kalos 20:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

removal of Vine & Fig Tree?
Not sure why you thought it necessary to remove the "Vine & Fig Tree" preterist page, since it has an often-overlooked "Why Does it Matter?" section, as well as some responses to others in the Preterist community - in other words it helps to answer questions that may arise to a person investigating the issue of Preterism in general, and Partial vs. Full specifically. Could it be because the focus of the site is other theological issues? Or, I must ask - with tongue firmly planted in cheek! - is it because the page begins with the Webster's dictionary definition implying "Preterism" is "Full"? ;) --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 18:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Darren
Good to have a name. I removed Vine and Fig because they are a full preterist site. If you wish to add them under the full pret list, then please feel free. I didn't even notice the definition issue. With John, I still think that is a bit much in comparison to the other entries. Personally I think noting that he has a radio show briefly is fine - but this isn't a battle to die for IOW, you heard my opinion, whatever you decide isn't going to get a fight from me. I think though it opens the door for others to come in and put in really long descriptives for their favourite sites, and it just will be mini entries on sites, not really an encyclopedia article on preterism generally. But that is all you need to hear from me, I don't want to harp on a minor point.

Now, a more important issue is the recent change by Anon208 - without comment, and I think without justification. The comment was that "all did not agree." Well all that are participating in this collaboration by posting in this discussion thread have since the issue came up. Also one of your changes that definitely should not have been reverted is one of better grammar (would condemn, this view etc) and there should no zero controversy in that change. The "many" is the issue, and we three were in agreement with a comprimise statement.

Thoughts? I would like to change it back.

Dee Dee Warren 18:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)  [Dee Dee Warren]

whoops got confused
My entry above I got confused - I meant Kalos' changes, not yours Darren - so part of my comments were directed to Kalos. Sorry about that confusion. I think all can follow what I meant though.

In other words, the links issue was towards you leaving it in your hands.

The "many" change issue was directed towards Kalos and Mike.

Dee Dee Warren 18:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Dee Dee Warren]

Darren and Kalos
Darren: I see I neglected your question - I kind of do both, respond in the original message and also respond in a separate one. The Wiki server is very slow for me for some reason lately so I have been just adding a response to the end.

Kalos: I will wait a bit to see if anyone else comments, and if not, I will change it back. Perhaps Mike has something to add.

Dee Dee Warren 21:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Dee Dee Warren]

responses to my queries
Thanks, Dee Dee I didn't realize I put Vine & Fig Tree under "Partial", to be honest he says outright he is still investigating so doesn't call himself either, but he attacks the ways Partials are attacking Fulls as ignoring Scripture etc. so that is why he may appear to actually *be* a Full. To me this is a good resource since it is the closest thing to an objective voice in the Preterist community - including some email exchanges re. the differences, rebuking some who have called for formal excommunication based on the Creeds, etc... Much to be learned by seeing what both sides say - in this case on a single site.

re. John Anderson - I thought the description was helpful not to say it is the greatest thing (or especially "this author's favorite") but rather to explain why it is so valuable. The reason I would suggest this resource over nearly all others is that his radio program has BOTH Partial and Full Preterists on regularly... And includes debates with Futurists (pre-trib, amill, etc.) and the programs are archived for at least the last 6 months or so.

re. posting in Talk:... - I've got a slow connection or something too, or at least the Wiki server is slow in responding, so I think from now on if I've got a few different things I'm going to respond to I'll just do this - add it to the end and paraphrase what I am responding to, unless of course my memory is shot. I am presuming, however, that most of us still click the "history" tab to see what is new since we last posted something... In the way I have just described, I guess I'll do that, but only once will be necessary then I can see what answers I need to provide, questions I need to ask, etc.

(apologies for my verbal diearea ;) ) Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 17:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

continuing conversaton
Okay, Darren, again, nothing worth fighting over for me. We all realize that in a collabarative effort there has to be some give and take, so I will concede to your opinion on the descriptives for the links. I added a bit more descriptive to some of the links on my side.

As far as the "many" thing, Kalos, I will make that change tomorrow or on the weekend.

Dee Dee

I am making the change
Well no more comments so I am makign the change back to what Kalos had.

Dee Dee Warren 18:38, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

A view from the peanut gallery
As a totally disinterested third party (I'm Jewish, it's all heresy to us!), I want to express my appreciation for the way the editors having been working through their disagreements to come up with an article that's informative, balanced, and interesting. Sure, sparks have flown occasionally (how can they possibly not on such a subject?), but the net result shows to me how well the Wiki concept can work. Keep it up! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey JPGordan
Thanks for your comments :)

Dee Dee Warren 20:27, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Again an edit by an anonymous user
Again an anonymous user has made edits while we who are in the discussion have agreed. I have reverted them in two stages. One is removing a grammar problem that no reasonable person would have an issue with. The other is the true dispute. Kalos, perhaps you should make the changes next time, or Mike, since it is being painted as "my attack."

Dee Dee Warren 04:03, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

So far I could count three full preterists who disagree with your recent changes. Stop pushing your ridiculous personal agenda on this forum. Maybe MANY people in your circles consider Full Preterists "heretics" - MANY people in the Greek Orthodox Church also consider Partial Preterists heretics. Should we list every denomination here who things Preterists are heretics? Why only label Full Preterists as heretics? Be consistent...

Comments on above
Actually I count two, without any support, but primarily anger. We with our respective influences, could, I am quite sure, round up numerous people to come and cheer for our side. I could get oodles of orthodox preterists here to come and say how right I am - that is not really productive or the point but to have a few representatives willing in a spirit of collaboration is the point. What good does it do if I find two friends to come and revert the changes so we can count numbers (no, that is NOT what I am saying is being done, I am pointing out that if there is not substantive and factual participation in the discussion, the numbers mean little - we could all get numbers, I could get ten "reverters" here today if that were the point) It is in fact untrue in the sense in which you are stating that eastern orthodox would consider partial preterism to be heresy - why are you not being upfront with the facts? I am pretty close with several eastern orthodox persons and my family heritage is eastern orthodox. The eastern orthodox consider themselves to be the one true church and ANYONE that is not a part of the eastern orthodox church is a schismatic. That does not mean that they consider them necessarily unsaved or heretics in the ultimate sense. Eastern Orthodox would make a TREMENDOUS distinction between their view of many doctrines that are not sanctioned by the eastern orthodox church as schismatic between those that deny one of the essentials of the faith as codified by the Creeds since the eastern orthodox is a confessional movement. Also it is untrue that MANY individual Eastern Orthodox would consider my view a heresy for it is untrue that MANY even know about it - the number that do would be very small. And if they had an issue they would consult with their priest and the above follows. ALL Protestants are schismatics. Not all Protestants are "heretics" in the ultimate sense. Please play upfront with the facts. You need to give support that it is NOT MANY who do consider full preterism a heresy that are not full preterists and are aware of the movement. I can think of two significant persons. That is all while I could list numerous others here who do. Your personal dislike of that opinion of others is not proof, nor should your personal dislike constitute the content of a Wiki. For someone to consider a fact, as an attack, without providing any substantive counter-facts is irrational. Furthermore, please sit back and consider that these are not MY changes - the wording in fact is from a full preterist. Another full preterist advocated even stronger language than I was willing to agree to. My chosen words would be "most" - IF I were pushing "my agenda." But as a positive note, at least the grammatical/style changes were left alone and we are down to only the many versus some issue.

Here is where I suggested before of making the statement without quantification though I cannot think of an artful way to do so. Or a way of wording that makes it clear that this view is not even well-known in the Church. One objection (perhaps valid) to the "many" issue is that it might lend the impression that out of a random church full of people, many there would even know what the view was and would consider it heresy. Most have never even heard of it - though I would suspect, without statistical proof, just an appeal to the obvious, that the average church-goer upon hearing that Christ is not returning etc would have an instinct that such would be considered heresy. However, that is not the "many" I am referring to. The "many" I am referring to are out of the group that is even aware of the view. It cannot at all be credibly argued that out of such group many do not view it as heresy. One denomination has issued an official anathema, multiple churches have disfellowshiped elders or are in that process. Books have been published denouncing this as hreresy. While books have been published on partial preterism stating the view is wrong - these major books do not denounce the view as heresy while many do view full preterism as heresy rather than error. The worlds largest countercult/apologetics group, the Christian Research Institute has issued a statement in 2004 from Andy Milliken at CRI (I have a copy of an earlier one which state that same thing):

"...CRI considers the preterist position to be one viable eschatological position among several, and is within the pale of orthodox Christianity, since it doesn't conflict with the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith...A distinction needs to be made, however, between the preterist (also called partial-preterist) and the full-preterist (also called 'hyper-preterist') views on eschatology. While preterists do assert that the majority of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, full-preterists insist that even the Second Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection of believers have already occurred.   This position is not part of the historic, orthodox Christian faith. (emphasis added)"

This is the most common position.

Dee Dee Warren 14:39, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Kalos, Mike? Any additions?

Dee Dee Warren 14:39, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

the 1999 CRI letter
I have a copy of the CRI letter from 1999

"A vital distinction needs to be made, however, between the preterist [partial - addition mine for clarity] and "hyper-preterist" views pertainin to eschatology. While preterists do assert that the majority of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, "hyper-preterists" go so far as to insist that even the Second Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection has already occured.  This position is no part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith." [emphasis mine]

CRI is the largest group dealing with cults, apologetics, and abherrent doctrines in the Church. This has been their consistent position since even before I was exploring the issue. Of the persons and groups that are aware of this view, this as expressed above is the majority position.

Dee Dee Warren 15:43, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

== who is CRI and which Church says we are heretics? by 68.73.136.251 ==

MY RESPONSE:

CRI is the largest Christian group dealing with abherrant Christian doctrine, well-known and well-respected. I could quote others. You would evidently dismiss out of hand anyone I would produce as "haters."

68.73.136.251 says:

You have no shame in displaying your hatred of full preterist. Why don't you explain the fact that CRI is a Preterist-hating, partial-preterist outfit which pushes a partial-preterist agenda, just like you do? Why are you quoting an obscure group which probably has a handful of employees? Why don't we look at what the Catholic Church actually teaches on eschatology?

MY RESPONSE:

Those quotes from CRI predate any well-known employee of CRI adopting any position even remotely resembling preterism of any sort. In fact the President denies being a partial preterist (though the doctrine is the same as far as I am concerned). It is also outright false to say that CRI is a partial preterist organization. I could obtain an official statement of that if needed. Why is everyone who opposes your view a "hater"? Again more anger and attacks but no backed-up facts. CRI is hardly obscure, and the question in fact is "how do those who are not full preterists and are aware of the doctrine view it" - you are dismissing out of hand anyone who feels it is heretical, which in fact is the majority of those who are not full preterist and who are aware of it. That is simply a fact. Why should it be surprising to anyone that a group that denies several doctrines that the Church has held for millennia is viewed to be heretical? Why would you want to hide that fact? Like an onlooker said here earlier, it would be surprisingly if it were NOT commonly viewed as heretical. It really is just painfully obvious. That does not make the judgment RIGHT, but it does EXIST.

68.73.136.251 says:

The Catholic Church, the largest body of Christians on the planet, has REFUSED to take a position either way on the issue of Preterism. Preterism has never been labeled as "heresy" by the Church, the Pope or anyone else with authority in the Church. Furthermore, the Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of the Second Coming of Christ taking place in AD 70:

''Notwithstanding Christ's express refusal to specify the time of the end (Mark, xiii, 32; Acts, i, 6 sq.), it was a common belief among early Christians that the end of the world was near. This seemed to have some support in certain sayings of Christ in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which are set down in the Gospels side by side with prophecies relating to the end (Matt., xxiv; Luke, xxi), and in certain passages of the Apostolic writings, which might, not unnaturally, have been so understood (but see II Thess., ii, 2 sqq., where St. Paul corrects this impression)'' -- The Catholic Encyclopedia

MY RESPONSE:

That conclusive statement is patently untrue - and I have to wonder how deliberate this is. Catholics accept the Apostle's Creed and all the eucemenical Creeds of the Church which expressly exclude your view. Why are you not forthright with that? That quote of yours does not support your contention - it supports the contention that there was still another coming that did not find its fulfillment in those passages which Paul corrects. It says in fact the opposite of what you want. It admits that there is support for a "coming" in the destruction of Jerusalem (ie partial preterism) and denies that such would be the only one. Of course the Catholic Church would support partial preterism, the first systematizer of partial preterism was a Catholic (Luis de Alcazar). The Catholic Church would indeed condemn as heresy this full preterist doctrine. The Catholic Church accepts the Athanasian Creed. Here is a pertinent quote from the Creed:

'''He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.'''

This Creed goes so far to declare as damned anyone who would deny these things - something which I did not push for in the article. This quote is from the Catholic Encyclopedia as well (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm) so please stop misrepresenting Catholic doctrine here.

Further the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

''The creeds and professions of faith and conciliar definitions do not leave it doubtful that the resurrection of the body is a dogma or an article of faith. We may appeal, for instance, to the Apostles' Creed, the so-called Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Creed of the Eleventh Council of Toledo, the Creed of Leo IX, subscribed by Bishop Peter and still in use at the consecration of bishops the profession of faith subscribed by Michael Palaeologus in the Second Council of Lyons, the Creed of Pius IV, and the Decree of the Fourth Lateran Council (c. "Firmiter") against the Albigenses. This article of faith is based on the belief of the Old Testament, on the teaching of the New Testament, and on Christian tradition.''

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

You will not do well to appeal to the Catholic Church in support.

68.73.136.251 says:

The Catholic Church, also recognizes the doctrine of Particular Judgment, which teaches that each individual is being judged at the time of his or her death. This is in full agreement with the Full Preterist position on judgment for example.

MY RESPONSE:

This is also a half-truth. A lot of people would affirm a particular judgment but that is NOT the final judgment. For instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia also says

''The Roman Catechism thus explains why, besides the particular judgment of each individual, a general one should also be passed on the assembled world. ''

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

This is very clear. Again, you should not appeal to half-truths to support your position. The Catholic Church would wholeheartedly be in disagreement with you. Nearly any Christian can be said to affirm a particular judgment. I do. And I certainly do NOT affirm the full preteirst version. Let's be straight with the facts please.

68.73.136.251 says:

Let me further point out, that everyone posting in this forum is very likely a protestant Christian. According to the council of Trent, which took place between 1545 and 1563, the Church final answer to the Reformation was a condemnation of all the "truths of Reformation" as "pestilential heresy". This in turn makes everyone here a heretic in the eyes of the Church, so please, do not lecture full preterists on who is and who is not a heretic.

MY RESPONSE:

And that is completely irrelevant here. It is well known that both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches view themselves as the one true Church. They would still single out with particularity any denial of the basics contained in the Creeds. And this is a very bad red herring. Let me explain why. What 68.73.136.251 has done is to point out that allegedly Catholics would consider us all heretics (this is in fact untrue as Vatican II - a much later Catholic Council would clarify) because we ARE Protestants - that is irrelevant to the issue of full preterism in PARTICULAR. What 68 would have to do is see if we both would be considered heretics for our particular versions of preterism (not our Protestantism). And the answer is NO. Partial preterism would not be - it was first systematized by a Catholic. Full preterism would be.

68.73.136.251 says:

We've asked this question before, and none of the attackers have answered: "What Church council, Pope, Church authority, and Church decree labeled Preterism as heresy, and when did this happen?" Stop the babble and answer the question. Yes, we all know that YOU PERSONALLY believe full preterism to be a heresy. Where does the Church state so?

MY RESPONSE:

Again, another personal attack - everyone who disagrees with you is an "attacker" and you provide no rebuttals to the points presented. And who is "we" that you are referring to? I am here as myself, not as a "we" - though I certainly could assemble a "we" but for what purpose? Are the two full preterists here who have supported this point also "attackers?" But to the point at hand, I just quoted the Athanasian Creed above. It clearly condemns your view and is a Creed of the Church. The Apostle's Creed also does for it affirms what the faith IS - and obviously it cannot be what it is not. As does the Nicene Creed, confirmed by a Church Council. Nearly all segments of conservative Christianity accept all three Creeds and all of the eucemenical creeds denounce your view - the Athanasian Creed does so explicitly. So your question has been answered. The eucemenical Creeds are the highest pronouncments of the Church. Also in my Catholic Encyclopedia quote above Papal pronouncements have been referenced. That is where the Church says so, which has even been recently anathematized by a denomination quoted earlier in this discussion thread as follows:

"The Spiritual Council of Sacramento Covenant Reformed Church prepared an overture to the Western Classis, asking it to adopt and forward to the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States, the following:

Whereas,

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no physical Resurrection of the body, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that the Second Coming of our Lord is already past, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no future Great White Throne Judgment, and

Whereas, these views represent a satanic attack upon the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints,

Therefore, in the certain Hope of the Resurrection, the Reformed Church in the United States does hereby find the Hymenaean heresy to be contrary to orthodoxy, and its adherents to be preachers of a false gospel. Let these enemies of Christ and His Kingdom be anathema maranatha.

We further urge the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States to broadly communicate the action taken this day to those of like precious faith, that the people of God may be warned against this false gospel, and encouraged to pray for the repentance of those lost souls who have been enslaved by it. ADOPTED BY WESTERN CLASSIS MARCH 13, 1997 AND FORWARDED TO SYNOD."

Your doctrines have been in fact been condemned by many. The denial of the physical resurrection was one of the earliest things pronounced as heresy in the Church. Justin Martyr, a very early Church Father stated:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this (truth), and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians.

This is simply not contestable. What you should be contesting is the validity of these judgments, not the reality of them. And the Wiki article does give voice to the full preterist contest of the validity. Contesting the reality is historically revisionist and not forthright.

Dee Dee Warren 21:37, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Mike's Response to the Anon Full Preterist
Whoever you are, I'd love for you to identify yourself by name. Obviously, you're a full preterist, as am I. However, a major difference between you and I seems to be that your skin isn't thick enough to face the fact that MANY Christians who are eschatologically educated deem full preterism to be unorthodox.

Your point that Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic Church and were originally considered heretics is well taken; but, of course, there doesn't exist a Church (capital "C") that embodies all truth to which we can appeal, so we are left with the PERCEPTIONS of Church members. Those perceptions, while based on the Creeds and not necessarily correct, exist nonetheless. Face the facts, you "heretic." It would be nice to have some company. ;-)

And please know that Dee Dee is not making a personal attack with this Wiki entry. She is not using this entry to make you look bad. You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it yourself.

Also, your assertion that the Catholic Church wouldn't think full preterism is heresy is simply groundless. Using The Catholic Encyclopedia as your authoritative reference is like someone using Shelby Spong's books to prove your point. Why not use the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly states that it looks forward to a future, bodily return of Jesus to this earth, as well as a physical resurrection? If an archbishop told the pope he was a full preterist, the College of Cardinals would be voting for a new pope soon as a result of his fatal heart attack. (If the RCC were to embrace full preterism, its Magisterium would lose all authority. To take a view completely the opposite of what it's been preaching for centuries would be death to the RCC's power. It ain't gonna happen.) Mike Beidler 21:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Mike
Hey Mike, thanks for your response. I do think your prior suggestion of "though not universally" is the acceptable comprimise between our respective views, and I would suggest that such be accepted as it was. It is less strong than the simple "many" statement and still historically accurate. The focus IMHO from the full preterists (as would be my focus if I were in your shoes) would be to dispute the validity of the opinion, but I would have to accept that the opinion exists. I believe that the section in the Wiki which shows that full preterists dispute the validity accomplishes that goal. I do think that is the reasonable goal for a Wiki article. If the validity dispute needs more detail, let's look at it, but the "many but not universally" is accurate. Purging it from the Wiki doesn't remove it from reality - and frankly, engaging in burying of facts is making a controversial movement even more marginalized. Now, I am not going to pretend like I am some great defender of the reputation of full preterism, but honestly, dealing with the actual facts is to the benefit of all concerned and should be sought by all. Mike and I do not agree by any means on doctrine, but personally and here on the Wiki we have frankly dealt with the criticisms others have of our position. I have to personally face the fact that a dominant criticism of my view is that it leads to full preterism. While I dispute that, it would not do for me to deny that this is the most common objection to my view.

Dee Dee Warren 22:50, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Preterism/Archive 2


text:
Calgary Centre-North

Calgary Centre-North (formerly known as Calgary North Centre) was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 2004 to 2015. It was a mixed urban and suburban constituency in Calgary – with a dense urban area close to the Bow River in the south and suburbs in the north of the riding, west of Deerfoot Trail and east of Nose Hill Park.

History
This riding was created as "Calgary North Centre" in 2003 from Calgary Centre (38%), Calgary—Nose Hill (38%) and Calgary Northeast (24%).

In 2004, it was renamed "Calgary Centre-North".

In 2013, it was abolished and redistributed into Calgary Confederation (67%) and Calgary Nose Hill (33%) ridings.

Members of Parliament
This riding has elected the following members of the House of Commons of Canada:

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Calgary Centre-North


text:
Calgary Northeast

Calgary Northeast was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 1988 to 2015. It is an urban riding in the city of Calgary.

History
This riding was created in 1987 from Calgary East and Bow River ridings.

In 2003, parts of this electoral district were transferred to Calgary Centre-North riding.

The riding was abolished in 2015. The bulk of the riding became Calgary Skyview, except for a small portion that was transferred to Calgary Forest Lawn (the former Calgary East).

Members of Parliament
This riding has elected the following members of the House of Commons of Canada:

Election results
Note: Conservative vote is compared to the total of Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance vote in 2000.

Note: Canadian Alliance vote is compared to the Reform vote in 1997.

title: Calgary Northeast


text:
Talk:Summerlin, Nevada

Is Summerlin it's own city or township? Is it just a census-designated place? Or is it neither of these things? Rmisiak 12:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Officially a CDP. The "Summerlin Council" is sort of a super-HOA, but it doesn't have any powers not ultimately conferred by homeowners' deeds. Stan 13:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Summerlin is in both the city and county.  Part of it is a CDP (not sure if the CDP is only Summerlin}.  The Summerlin Council is only responsible for the parks with very little power, Summerlin South, Summerlin North, Summerlin Centre, Summerlin West, Sienna and Sun City Summerlin actually run their parts of the community.  Not sure how the CDP of South Summerlin matches the Summerlin South community.  Tax roles list the town as Summerlin, at least in Summerlin South.  Vegaswikian 7 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
 * The only CDP I know of is Summerlin South, Nevada, a standard way for the census to cope with population concentrations not part of any incorporated city. (By virtue of automated article creation back in 2002, we have articles on virtually all town and CDPs in the US.) CDPs may or may not correspond to the community, but the census tries to get them to match up reasonably, otherwise its results are less useful. When you say "run their communities", what do you mean? There are no mayors or councils elected, and no ability to pass laws. Stan 7 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)
 * From what little I can find out, the South Summerlin CDP runs on the east side of Hualapai Way with a nothern boarder of Charleston Boulvard. The West and south boundary appear to the SR 159 which is what Charleston becomes when it approaches Red Rock and is Blue Diamond went it approaches that area.  If that is correct, then it does not reflect the association called Summerlin South or Summerlin.  They run their communities in that they control all exterior changes to the properity including building and landscaping.  They own and run the parks and set the rules for their use.  They are responsible for all of the landscaping on public streets and the wall that seperate the communities from public areas.  You are correct in that there is no mayor type of government.  Category:Summerlin contains a list of all of the parts of Summerlin.  I believe that the US postal Service covers what is listed in the Category above from its Summerlin Post Office. Vegaswikian 7 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
 * I should have added that Summerlin North and Summerlin West are in the City of Las Vegas so they should be included in that CDP. Vegaswikian 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
 * In looking at the census data for housing and knowing some facts you can draw some conclusions especially if you consider the boundary described above. Summerlin started in 1990 with only Summerlin North being developed at that time.  Summerlin South started around 1998 or 1999 after the water supply system was built.  As far as I know, the Hughes land that became Summerlin was all open with no housing units.  The census data shows 11 units built in the 1960s and 15 built in between 1990 and 1994. There were 517 built between 1995 and 1998 and 1185 from 1999 to March 2000.  That increase would match the start of development for Summerlin South.  However you would still need to account for those other 26 units.  I seem to recall some houses, mobile homes, on the east side of Blue Diamond so that could be part of that 26 count.  Vegaswikian 7 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

Summerlin website restrictions
Just to note that access to Summerlin's official website is restricted in terms of the usage agreement in place. Reading the terms of use policy, you can't perform machine translation of the site as that puts it inside a frame -- a violation. You can't even use software from the site if you are from Iraq. I understand how the U.S. is restricted from exporting to Iraq or other restricted countries/organizations, but this is just a homeowners association website! Foreign users of Wikipedia who try to follow the link and have to read it in English will be disappointed. Isn't this a bit too much? --Geopgeop 14:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes a planned community "best-selling"?
I don't understand. You build houses and then you sell them all. What makes a community "best selling"? Nohat (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The highest number of houses sold in the community in a year. In other words, Summerlin had more new home sales for several years then any other planned community in the US.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Shooting
I think this shooting should be added. https://www.8newsnow.com/investigators/mother-was-concerned-about-safety-before-las-vegas-law-office-shooting-documents-reveal/ GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Summerlin, Nevada


text:
John Verbruggen

John Baptista Verbruggen, d. 1708, was an English actor working in London. Verbruggen is first mentioned as a member of the United Company in a Lord Chamberlain's warrant in 1688. His name does not appear in any cast lists until October 1690. The Biographical Dictionary of Actors contains an inconclusive discussion of the statement in Thomas Davies's Dramatic Miscellanies (1784) that Verbruggen was identical to the actor referred to in 1680s and 90s cast lists as "Mr. Alexander", supposedly an alias based on the part of Alexander the Great in John Dryden's Rival Queens. The evidence is confusing, and there is no independent support for Davies's anecdote, written down a century later. Verbruggen had never played the part of Alexander the Great and was not to do so until January 1703.

One reason for Verbruggen to use a different name might have been that his own was often misspelled: Verbrugen, Verbrogell, Verkruggan, Verbrugger. As "John Verbuggin", he is recorded as marrying the well-known actress Susanna Mountfort, widow of the actor William Mountfort, on 31 January 1694. Adding another possibility for confusion, William Mountfort was famous for his Alexander the Great.

When many of the senior actors at the United Company, headed by Thomas Betterton, seceded from the monopoly company and formed an actors' cooperative in March 1695, John and Susanna Verbruggen remained with Christopher Rich at the Drury Lane Theatre, where they were important assets to the depleted company. Rich raised Verbruggen's salary from £2 to £4 weekly to sign a new contract to "with his best care and skill Sing Dance Act Rehearse and Represent", an arrangement which put him on a level with George Powell, the leading actor in the remaining Drury Lane troupe. After a quarrel about shares and benefits which led to a physical fight in September 1696, Verbruggen was discharged from acting, but ordered by the Lord Chamberlain to stay with the Drury Lane company until 1 January 1697, to give Rich time to find a replacement. This order made possible the endangered November première of John Vanbrugh's The Relapse, where Verbruggen played the part of Loveless.

Moving to Betterton's company in January 1697, Verbruggen began to receive some critical comment, chiefly positive. He was considered a natural actor, with "a negligent agreeable Wildness in his Action and his Mein, which became him well". He chiefly played "fine gentlemen", wits, and rakes, and was William Congreve's original Mirabell in The Way of the World (1700). Anthony Aston contrasted his wild, untaught talents with Betterton's artfulness, and he was especially appreciated in "natural" characters such as the unique title character in a stage adaptation of Aphra Behn's Oroonoko written by Thomas Southerne.

John and Susanna Verbruggen had a child as early as 1703, Lewis, who was baptized on 27 May. Susanna Verbruggen died between July and August 1703, and the infant was buried in October. John Baptista Verbruggen was buried on 12 March 1708, and on 26 April at Drury Lane, a benefit was held for "a Young Orphan-Child of the late Mr Verbruggen and Mrs Verbruggen", presumably the John George Verbruggen, son of John and Susanna, who was baptized on 23 November 1708.

Selected appearances
Tamerlane by Nicholas Rowe (1701)

title: John Verbruggen


text:
Calgary Centre

Calgary Centre (Calgary-Centre; formerly known as Calgary South Centre) is a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that has been represented in the House of Commons of Canada since 1968. The riding consists of many young adults who have a relatively high average household income and education level. As the riding encompasses the downtown core and large swaths of apartment blocks in the communities west and south of downtown, Calgary Centre has a low home ownership rate compared to the rest of Canada.

History
The original Calgary Centre was created in 1966 from parts of the former electoral districts of Calgary North and Calgary South. This riding was abolished in the 2003 Representation Order when parts of it went to the neighbouring electoral districts of Calgary North Centre and Calgary West and to Calgary South Centre. The latter was renamed Calgary Centre in 2004. When it was created in 2003 (as Calgary South Centre), it included 70,972 people from the abolished district of Calgary Centre, 38,889 people from Calgary West and 7,578 from Calgary Southwest.

The riding was notable at the 2000 federal election when residents elected former Prime Minister Joe Clark, representing the Progressive Conservatives, making the riding one of the few areas in Alberta that did not elect a candidate from the Canadian Alliance.

This riding lost territory to Calgary Signal Hill and gained territory from Calgary East during the 2012 electoral redistribution.

Geography
The riding contains the neighbourhoods of Downtown Calgary, Beltline, Mission, Cliff Bungalow, Mount Royal, Elbow Park, Scarboro, Sunalta, Shaganappi, Killarney/Glengarry, Richmond, Bankview, South Calgary, Rutland Park, CFB - Currie, Lincoln Park, CFB - Lincoln Park, Altadore, North Glenmore Park, Britannia, Elboya, Windsor Park, Manchester, Bel-Aire, Mayfair, Meadowlark Park, Inglewood, Ramsay, Parkhill, Erlton, Rideau/Roxboro, Eau Claire, Chinatown, Downtown East Village

Demographics
Languages (2011): 73.19% English, 4.13% Chinese, 2.09% French, 2.04% Spanish, 1.76% Tagalog, 1.21% Arabic, 1.21% Korean

Religions (2001): 32.63% Protestant, 24.52% Catholic, 2.23% Christian Orthodox, 4.88% Other Christian, 2.60% Muslim, 1.09% Jewish, 1.04% Buddhist, 30.14% No religion

Median income (2005): $30,729

Members of Parliament
This riding has elected the following members of the House of Commons of Canada:

Current member of Parliament
This seat is held by Greg McLean. McLean, a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, was elected in the 2019 federal election.

Calgary South Centre, 2004–2005
Results based on redistributed results. Conservative Party change is compared to a combination of Progressive Conservative Party and Canadian Alliance totals.

Calgary Centre, 1966–2003

 * align="left" colspan=2|Progressive Conservative gain from Reform
 * align="right"|Swing
 * align="right"| -14.5
 * align="right"|

title: Calgary Centre


text: User talk:195.10.5.6

title: User talk:195.10.5.6


text:
Edmonton East

Edmonton East (formerly known as Edmonton Centre-East) was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 1917 to 2015.

The district included a portion of the city of Edmonton.

Geography
The district at first was a far-flung mixed urban and rural riding that extended from the North Saskatchewan River into the Northland northeast of Edmonton. It covered the area stretching north and east of the connection of 101st Street and the North Saskatchewan River, in the middle of present-day Edmonton, all the way to the north boundary of Alberta.

In 1924 it was compressed to nearby farmland north of Edmonton (an area that is within the present limits of Edmonton), plus on the north side of the river the whole of Edmonton lying east of 101st Street, and on the south side of the river the area lying within Edmonton and east of the C&E line.

Later, it became an urban riding within the City of Edmonton.

In 1966, it was in the area lying north of 98th Avenue and east of 101st Street.

In 1976, it was entirely on the north side and between Groat Road/109th Street and 97th Street.

History
This riding was originally created in 1914 as "Edmonton East" from Edmonton and Victoria ridings. At the time of its creation, this district included a massive, sparsely populated rural area. Most of this area was removed due to the creation of Athabaska in 1924, and although it gained some back when Pembina riding was abolished in 1987, it became a fully urban riding by the end of its existence.

In 1924, it took in parts of the now-abolished Strathcona riding that had been within Edmonton city limits.

As Edmonton's population has grown, Edmonton East also lost urban territory to new ridings. Edmonton East lost territory due to the creation of Edmonton—Strathcona (in 1952), Edmonton Centre (1966), Edmonton North (1976), and Edmonton Northwest (1987). It gained area due to the (temporary) abolition of Edmonton Centre in 1976.

In 2000, it was renamed "Edmonton Centre-East". In 2003 Edmonton Centre-East was abolished and its territory reassigned to a re-created Edmonton Centre, a new Edmonton East riding, and Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

The new "Edmonton East" riding was created from parts of Edmonton Centre-East and the dissolved riding of Edmonton North.

Members of Parliament
This riding elected the following members of the House of Commons of Canada:

Edmonton Centre-East, 2000
Note: Canadian Alliance vote is compared to the Reform vote in 1997.

Edmonton East, 1997
Note: Social Credit vote is compared to New Democracy vote in 1940 election.

title: Edmonton East


text:
Canal Street station (IND Eighth Avenue Line)

The Canal Street station (formerly Canal Street–Holland Tunnel) is an express station on the IND Eighth Avenue Line of the New York City Subway. Located at the intersection of Canal Street, Vestry Street, and Sixth Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) in Lower Manhattan, it is served by the A and E trains at all times, and the C train at all times except late nights.

Construction and opening
New York City mayor John Francis Hylan's original plans for the Independent Subway System (IND), proposed in 1922, included building over 100 mi of new lines and taking over nearly 100 mi of existing lines. The lines were designed to compete with the existing underground, surface, and elevated lines operated by the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT) and Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT). On December 9, 1924, the New York City Board of Transportation (BOT) gave preliminary approval to the construction of a subway line along Eighth Avenue, running from 207th Street. The BOT announced a list of stations on the new line in February 1928, with an express station at Walker Street.

Most of the Eighth Avenue Line was dug using a cheap cut-and-cover method. The Canal Street station was to be one of three Eighth Avenue Line stations underneath Sixth Avenue in Lower Manhattan; the other two stations were to be at Spring Street and West Fourth Street. As part of the construction of the Eighth Avenue Line in Lower Manhattan, Sixth Avenue was extended south to Church Street starting in 1926. This required the demolition of dozens of buildings along the route. By August 1930, the BOT reported that the Eighth Avenue Line was nearly completed, except for the stations between Chambers Street–Hudson Terminal and West Fourth Street (including the Canal Street station), which were only 21 percent completed. The entire line was completed by September 1931, except for the installation of turnstiles.

A preview event for the new subway was hosted on September 8, 1932, two days before the official opening. The Eighth Avenue Line station opened on September 10, 1932, as part of the city-operated IND's initial segment, the Eighth Avenue Line between Chambers Street and 207th Street. When the station opened in 1932, express (A) and local (AA) trains served the line; expresses did not run during late nights or Sundays. When the IND Concourse Line opened on July 1, 1933, the C express train started operating, while all locals became CC trains to the Concourse Line. The E began using the local tracks on August 19, 1933, when the IND Queens Boulevard Line opened. One real-estate expert said the station's construction had encouraged the construction of large developments around the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, such as the Holland Tunnel Plaza Building.

Later modifications
As part of a pilot program, the New York City Board of Transportation (BOT) installed three-dimensional advertisements at the Canal Street station in late 1948. The BOT announced plans in November 1949 to spend $325,000 extending platforms at several IND stations, including Canal Street, to accommodate 11-car, 660 ft trains. The lengthened trains began running during rush hour on September 8, 1953, with eleven-car trains operating on weekdays. The project cost $400,000 and increased the total carrying capacity of rush-hour trains by 4,000 passengers. The operation of eleven-car trains ended in 1958 because of operational difficulties. The signal blocks, especially in Manhattan, were too short to accommodate the longer trains, and the motormen had a very small margin of error to properly align the train with the platform. It was found that operating ten-car trains allowed for two additional trains per hour to be scheduled.

On February 17, 1953, the BOT installed two devices at either end of the station to alert police of passers-by above of emergencies in the station. The devices, which cost $1,100, were called "Call-a-Cop." In the station agent booth, an agent could set off an alarm bell and turn on a red warning light aboveground at Canal and Walker Streets on Sixth Avenue by lightly pushing on a treadle. The warning lights were placed atop eight-feet tall metal poles located at subway entrances. This device would have been installed at other stations if the pilot at the station was successful.

Station layout
The Canal Street station is an underground express station that has four tracks and two island platforms, which are each approximately 660 ft long. The and  stop here at all times, while the  only stops here during the day. The A runs express during the day and local at night, while the C and E always run local. The next stop to the north is Spring Street for local trains and West Fourth Street–Washington Square for express trains. The next stop to the south is Chambers Street for A and C trains via the express tracks and World Trade Center for E trains via the local tracks. At either end of the station is a diamond crossover between each local and express tracks. Northbound C and nighttime A trains cross from the express track to the local track past the north end of the platforms and southbound C and nighttime A trains cross from the local track to the express track past the south end of the platforms. The platforms are offset, and a signal tower is located at the south end of the southbound platform.

The walls of the station contain cobalt blue tile bands with darker blue borders. Since Canal Street is an express station, it has a wider tile band than local stations. The tile colors are intended to help riders identify their station more easily, part of a color-coded tile system for the entire Independent Subway System. The tile colors were designed to facilitate navigation for travelers going away from Lower Manhattan; on the Eighth Avenue Line, the tiles change color at the next express station to the north. As such, the blue tiles used at the Canal Street station were also used on Spring Street, the local station to the north; the next express station, West Fourth Street, used a different tile color.

Track layout
South of this station, the tracks split into two levels and cross at a flying junction. These were intended to allow for the construction of a future junction with a proposed line under Worth Street as part of the IND Second System. The proposed route would have run under Worth Street and East Broadway, and crossed the East River to Brooklyn. The bellmouths for this proposed route are visible from the E train headed towards and coming from the World Trade Center station. On the tunnel wall where the turnout is, there is an arrow painted with the words reading: "Worth St." written next to it.

Exits
The station contains six open exits. Only one exit is located at the station's namesake – Canal Street – at the northeast corner of Sixth Avenue and Canal Street. The other exit leading from the northern section of the station leads to the south side of Laight Street, between Sixth Avenue and St. Johns Lane. At the center of the station, there are exits to the northwest and northeast corners of Sixth Avenue and West Broadway at Lispenard Street. At the southern end of the station, there are two exits. One exit leads to the northeast corner of Walker Street and Sixth Avenue, while the other leads to the AT&T Building.

The station also has three closed exits. One exit, located at the southern end of the station, led to the southeast corner of Walker Street and West Broadway. The other two are located in a passageway that extends further north than the current northernmost open exit; one led to the southeast corner of Grand Street and Sixth Avenue; the other led to Grand Street and Sullivan Street on the west side of Juan Pablo Duarte Square. The passageway currently houses employee facilities.

Nearby points of interest
The station is located on the street of the same name, which is the boundary of SoHo and Tribeca. The station sits one block west from the entrance to the Holland Tunnel outside of the Tribeca North Historic District. Much of the surrounding area is characterized by its historic loft architecture.

Several public parks are located near the station. Above the north end of the station at Canal Street and 6th Avenue are Albert Capsouto Park, Duarte Square, and Grand Canal Court. At the south end of the station at Walker Street is Tribeca Park. Several blocks to the west at the end of Canal Street are Canal Park and Hudson River Park. St. John's Park formerly existed two blocks west of the station; the site is now occupied by Holland Tunnel exit ramps.


text:
Edmonton—St. Albert

'''Edmonton—St. Albert''' was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 2004 to 2015.

Geography
The riding included the city of St. Albert and the neighbourhoods of Elsinore, Baturyn, Canossa, Lorelei, Beaumaris, Dunluce, Oxford, Griesbach, Carlisle, Caernarvon, Baranow, Cumberland, The Palisades, Pembina, Mooncrest Park, Wellington, Athlone, Kensington, Calder, Rosslyn and Lauderdale in the City of Edmonton.

History
The electoral district was created in 2003 from Edmonton North, St. Albert, and a small part of Edmonton West ridings.

Member of Parliament
This riding has elected the following members of Parliament:

title: Edmonton—St. Albert


text:
Edmonton—Sherwood Park (federal electoral district)

Edmonton–Sherwood Park was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 2004 to 2015. It was a suburban riding in Edmonton.

History
The electoral district was created in 2003 from Elk Island, Edmonton Centre-East and a small part of the Edmonton North riding.

It was abolished in 2015. The Edmonton portion became part of Edmonton Manning, while Sherwood Park became part of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Members of Parliament
This riding elected the following members of Parliament:


text:
User talk:Darkskyz

Re: Ophelia move
I know about that discussion but it happened fairly long ago with just only 4 editors taking part in and they gave no relevant reasons (or it makes sense can be considered relevant one). Moreover, Ophelia implies many things, why must it redirect to the character? I just came across this page when I initially typed "Ophelia" to search the moon of Uranus and it appeared to be the character. I see other similar pages, like Belinda or Miranda (both contains characters) etc. stand as a disambig page. That's why I moved it. I see you didn't join the poll. What about your idea?  A  W  09:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template
In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect. You currently have NoMultiLicense on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Village pump (policy) if you have any comments.

Delivered by The  Helpful  Bot  at 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Darkskyz


text:
Susanna Mountfort

Susanna Mountfort (1690-1720) was a British stage actress.

She was the daughter of the actors William Mountfort and his wife Susanna Mountfort. In 1692 her father was killed in a duel and her mother remarried and became known as Susanna Verbruggen. Her daughter took to the stage as a child actor in 1703, the year of her mother's death, and acted for many years at the Drury Lane Theatre appearing frequently in comedies as an ingénue. She also played Ophelia in Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Selected roles

 * Berynthia in An Act at Oxford by Thomas Baker (1704)
 * Angelica in The Biter by Nicholas Rowe (1704)
 * Valeria The Basset Table by Susanna Centlivre (1705)
 * Rose in The Recruiting Officer by George Farquhar (1706)
 * Florinda in The Wife of Bath by John Gay (1713)
 * Charlotte in The Female Advocates by William Taverner (1713)
 * Aurelia in The Apparition by Anonymous (1713)
 * Flora in The Country Lasses by Charles Johnson (1715)
 * Fidelia in The Play is the Plot by John Durant Breval (1718)

title: Susanna Mountfort


text:
Edmonton—Spruce Grove

Edmonton—Spruce Grove was a federal electoral district in Alberta, Canada, that was represented in the House of Commons of Canada from 2004 to 2015. It was a suburban riding in Edmonton.

The electoral district was created in 2003 from St. Albert, Edmonton Southwest and Edmonton West ridings. It was abolished in 2013. Most of the Edmonton portion became part of a recreated Edmonton West, with a small portion transferring to Edmonton Centre. The suburban portion became part of Sturgeon River—Parkland.

Member of Parliament
This riding elected the following members of Parliament:

Its only Member of Parliament for the duration of the riding's existence was Rona Ambrose, a former columnist and communication consultant, who was first elected to Parliament in the 2004 election as a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. She served as the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Labour, Minister responsible for the Status of Women, Minister of Western Economic Diversification, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and Minister of Health most recently. In the 2004-2005 parliamentary session, she served as a member of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, Standing Committee on Finance, Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and the Subcommittee on Fiscal Imbalance of the Standing Committee on Finance.

After the riding was dissolved in 2013, Ambrose went on to seek election in the new riding of Sturgeon River—Parkland in 2015, which she won.

Election results
''Note: Change based on redistributed results. Conservative vote is compared to the total of Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance vote in 2000.''

title: Edmonton—Spruce Grove


text:
Little Trees Hill

Little Trees Hill is one of the highest points of the Gog Magog Hills, a ridge of low chalk hills extending for several miles to the south-east of Cambridge in England. Unusually for a Cambridgeshire hill, its summit is reachable on foot, thanks to permissive open access. A footpath runs from the Magog Down car park on Haverhill Road, Stapleford, across the managed meadow called North Down, to the top. The highest point are behind a fence in a wood, but most visitors survey the view from the seats by the fence.

The panorama westward is vast; looking northwest there is no higher ground for 50 miles until the Lincolnshire Wolds. The city of Cambridge is visible, with Addenbrooke's Hospital and the Catholic Church prominent. The Madingley Hills can be seen over the other side of the Cam valley and Castle Hill in Cambridge is prominent. To the southwest, Rowley's Hill and the obelisk on St Margaret's Mount can be seen through binoculars.

The hill is within the 163.5 acre privately owned site called Magog Down, which is owned and managed by The Magog Trust. Many circular paths can be used within the site, of varying lengths. The site as a whole is popular with dog walkers and with sledges on the rare occasions when the hill is covered with snow.

The other summit in the range is Wandlebury Hill about 500 metres to the north east and to which this hill is connected by a low ridge.

title: Little Trees Hill