For those who already consider themselves “preterist,” there are two passages in particular where there is disagreement: 1 The. 4, and 1 Cor. 15. ..they yielded Russell’s most controversial opinions and torpedoed any chance at wide-spread adoption of what we might dub “preterist-premillennialism.” But before we get to those passages, let’s set the stage by discussing where Christ is said to reign at his parousia.
Continue reading “Erick Blore: 9 to 5 Thesis (2011)”
Because full Preterists see the 2 wars (Rev 19:17-21 & Rev 20:7-15) as both happening in AD 70, they are forced to conclude that they are the same war. This creates some serious problems for them.
Continue reading “Lloyd Dale: A Different Preterist Perspective (2002)”
I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell’s important work.
One can only marvel at the hermeneutical duplicity at work here and the way it ravages genre analysis. By means of such a hermeneutic any text could be made to say anything Continue reading “Randall Otto: Jesus the Preterist: a review of R.C. Sproul’s The Last Days According to Jesus (1999)”
This Procrustean bed of having all prophecy fulfilled by AD 70 leads to some of the following problems
The full preterist proposition of starting the millennium at or around AD 30 runs into a very big problem right off the bat.
Like many others who try to enlist Spurgeon in their camps by lifting comments out of context, the Pretniacs fall flat on their Pinnochian noses.
There is no indication of time in this parting promise, but it is only reasonable to suppose that the disciples would regard it as addressed to them, and that they would cherish the hope of soon seeing Him again, according to His own saying,
We must consequently regard this prediction of the loosing of Satan, and the events that follow, as still future, and therefore unfulfilled.
The well-known commentator, John David Michaelis, shrewdly conjectured that Babylon is identical with Jerusalem. Speaking of the place from which the First Epistle of Peter was written, he says: