Roderick,

So, because you are no longer a preterist and because Jared Coleman is an atheist, believing full preterist theory makes one not a Christian?

Here are a few authors, the list of which suggests full-preterist ideas as early 300 AD, not including, of course, the words of Christ and the apostles:

Eusebius (Proof of the Gospels, the Theophania circa 300 AD), Luis Alcasar (Vestigatio arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi, 1614), P.S. Desprez (The Apocalypse Fulfilled in the Consummation of the Mosaic Economy, 1854), F.W.Farrar (The Praeterist Interpretation from his book The Early Days of Christianity, 1882), Moses Stuart (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 1845), John Calvin (Preface to Commentary on Daniel by Thomas Myers, 1852), Marion Morris (Christ’s Second Coming Fulfilled, 1917), J.S. Russell (The Parousia, 1878), John Owen, Ernest Hampden-Cook (The Christ Has Come, 1891), the Weymouth New Testament, Samuel Lee (All Prophecy is Fulfilled, 1851, also discovered and edited Eusebius’ highly pret work The Theophania, above).

Now, to get to some of your points. Is a doctrinal proposition true simply because its found in the creeds? Is a biblical truth dependent upon what distinguished persons have or have not commented upon it or embraced it? I think you will agree with me that the answer is no.

Ultimately, I think you do damage to your arguments when you present them in such a vitriolic fashion. Perhaps, if you support your assertions with more biblical proof, others would listen more intently to what you have to say. If one wishes his or her arguments to be respected in the arena of biblical discourse, one must use biblical proofs to score points.

I think your presentation ultimately fails because you seem only to suggest that full preterist positions are invalid and should not be countenanced here because no one in history has ever embraced them. That, to me, seems a bit spurrious, given the list above and the fact that your assertions lack a biblical core (at least from what I’ve read so far).

Again, this site, as Andrew has clearly stated, is about formulating an emerging theology. If preterists or any others put forward compelling biblical reasons why their thoughts should be part of this emerging theology, then so be it. But I don’t think anyone here is going to stop considering a valid observation simply because someone is angrily huffing and puffing about a viewpoint’s alleged novelty or unprecedented status. It is innovative biblical scholarship that attracts the positive attention here not rants and raves. Sorry.

I, personally, would love to hear your biblical reasons why full preterist ideas should not be part of an emerging theology.

Yet, keep in mind, what we are engaged in here is writing and examaning the Code of the new theology, using civil discourse, well reasoned postulates, scholarship, ingenuity, and love. And quite frankly, your posts seem to comport with another set of ideals that aren’t a part of the intended culture here. It is not that others do not wish to read your work, we just wish to read it without all of the unnecessary personal attacks and nonsense, which have no home here. Here, please try submitting loving, collegial, biblical posts engendered toward finding the truth of Scripture for a new and emerging theology. Thank you for your time.