pilgrim wrote:Yet again a very gracious reply Chad and I appreciate it. I do consider you as my brother in Christ and I chuckled at your drowning man. Me too!!
As for those times when it makes sense to go against the bulk of scholastic thought I also agree that there are many times when we might (and perhaps should) do this. But as for dating some source material, that is a very technical skill and requires substantial knowledge and training.
Just as it would be silly of me to side with the one 'expert' who declares that he has a more efficient way of creating nuclear fusion which will solve all our energy needs, because I am not learned in that field, who am I to disagree with the consensus of nuclear scientists? Now, if the debate were on how to interpret a particular prophecy (eg the parousia), then I fully agree that, with considerable background reading etc, both you and I are competent enough to form an opinion and to stick with that opinion regardless of whether it is a minority view.
I think the foundation for my disbelief in preterism is because I just cannot accept that the events around 70CE came anywhere close to fulfilling most of the parousia prophecies. We disagree on this and that is fine.
I was happy to take another look at all the relevant texts (which I did and posted my conclusions) and it was only then that I noticed the comment in John's epistle and thought about the scholars views of the dating of that material. One thing I would emphasise is that I would take a little more note of those scholars who are disinterested in the date of his epistle(s). Others may well be more inclined to introduce bias.
So, I will repeat, that my position just happens to be tenable regardless of an early date, the preterist position is not. For this, apparently, my honesty and integrity have been repeatedly called into question. I can only think this is a defensive emotion from a brother and such emotions usually derive from some sort of fear of the alternative. Thankfully not by your good self.
P.S. I have no idea whether Robinson is a preterist or not but I will assume not. However, he is not a 'disinterested scholar'. He wrote a book proposing that a lack of comment re the destruction of the temple would imply that the writings were before that event. No doubt his intentions were good as he was arguing against those German scholars (Bultmann, higher criticism etc??) who were giving extremely late dates for all the NT books and so were robbing the NT of any historical accuracy. But even I, as a layman, can legitimately claim Robinson's argument to be weak if there exist many early christian writings from the church fathers, which were indisputably written post 70CE and yet do not mention the destruction of the temple. Now, it is obvious that Robinson would want his book to be considered credible and for that, he would have considerable interest in dismissing arguments for a later dating of the Johannine epistle.
be nice if all the horrors in Rev were already fulfilled..and this world wont have to go thru anymore..I;m not convinced tho..I sure hope so...dont want to think about any more terrible suffering on this poor earth..been way too much already (even as we speak, look at Syria for example ).