the twit actually had the nerve to say what they did and also at the same time say "I didn't read your post but...."

I think you've got the wrong person as I did not say that. It must be those meds again.

your ‘ jesuit smokescreen’ theory is a bit of a stretch ...

I extensively showed how it's not a stretch at all.

preterism and futurism aren’t jesuit conspiracies.

Yes they are.

they’re interpretive frameworks that predate or exist alongside historicism, each with legit scriptural arguments.

Show me where Preterism and Futurism pre-date Historicism. I don't need to see what you think they have legit scriptural arguements because the arguements are all abysmal, I've seen them, but if you want to post some go for it.

the reformers leaned on historicism to dunk on the papacy, sure, but that doesn’t make it the only valid take.

They leaned on it because it's the truth. For the record I don't even think "historicism" was a term until these other views got injected into christianity. It was just either the right way to interpret prophecies, or some other way. Again, truth is not subjective here.

preterism ties Revelation to 70 AD (roman destruction of Jerusalem), futurism looks to the future, and Historicism stretches it across history -none are inherently ‘deceptive.’

That's not true. If two of the three are misdirections and flat-out impossible and wrong, (which the two short YouTube videos I linked in the reply you blew over clearly show), then they most certainly are deceptive. The only thing left to prove would be malicious intent

all you are doing is just parroting a tired polemic without engaging the text.

I dropped in to enlighten people on Preterism's origin because it was pertinant to what you posted.

if you’re gonna swing, at least bring some exegesis to back it up, not just ‘reformers said so.’ 🙄 ...

I posted exegesis but judging by your next reply you didn't view any of it.