mens hair loss

Two Guys and a Bible-03.20.2012

by Michael J Loomis on March 22, 2012

Two Guys and a Bible with William Bell and Don K. Preston. Tuesday nights at 4PM Pacific/7PM Eastern.

Two Guys and A Bible

Two Guys and A Bible

March 20, 2011

Thank you for making this preterist podcast series part of your preterist media library.

Listen to last weeks broadcast here.


{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

James Metzger March 23, 2012 at 9:47 am

For the lurkers (FP’s will of course disagree, and that’s fine): Yes, Gentry and others (e.g. Jordan) pretty much left the reservation when they started applying Daniel 12 to 1st century AD. No scholars think that works, as far as I know, and almost all believe that Daniel was looking forward to the end of the Antiochene persecution and clearly has physical resurrection in view. Just an FYI, for those that do not follow the trends in scholarship.

There are some scholars who think the Olivet discourse (post e.g. Mark 13:24) could apply to the events of AD 70, but none of them think the same of 2TJ apocalyptic resurrection references like Daniel 12 (or Maccabees, or selections of 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, etc.) or the underpinning of the NT understanding (evidenced throughout Paul and Jesus dialogue). Wright, for instance, uses Daniel 12 as part of his larger argument on resurrection (e.g.

MoGrace2u March 24, 2012 at 7:57 am

Indeed Wright seems clear that much like the pagans and even Jews, Christians for the past 2,000 years have likewise been wrong about their heavenly hope – which he likens to having to be much the same as what the pagans surmised about the afterlife. But heaven is a real place and therefore a real hope; and it is precisely because our Lord was resurrected and walked the earth for 40 days with His disciples before He ascended to heaven, that we are assured of a bodily existence in heaven too. It is not life after life after death rather it is life that never ceases to exist in the world where Jesus now dwells and lives forever. Our hope is not to dwell in Sheol for an extended period of time then return to earth as men again, rather it is to have a fully human life in the eternal kingdom of heaven where the Lord reigns with His saints forever.

Doug in CO March 27, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Having read Wright’s book on resurrection on a dare by PaulT, my conclusion is that he came to his position as a defense against Full Preterism (and as a consequence Premillennial Preterism), though this might have been somewhat subconscious. I think he saw himself going over the cliff, saw a physical resurrection as a safety net (if it’s true, then the strong preterist eschatological explanations can’t be true), and grabbed on tight. Once he took this position on the resurrection he has been quite vague about eschatological matters, other than to embrace a vague partial preterism. In other words, he had to reject a future in heaven in order to avoid strong preterism.

James Metzger April 6, 2012 at 10:59 pm


That appears a rather odd thing to say. However, it’s typical of the response that one within a ‘small and insignificant’ movement would make, thinking their own perspective much more critical to modern thought than it is. The Christadelphians and sedevacantists probably also view Wright as subconsciously responding to their own peculiar and fringe ideas.

If you know anything about Wright as a scholar, in regards to his eschatology, you know that a) he has done his ‘homework’ (as evidenced in the 3 volumes on Christ, the early church, and the 2TJ background for the Christ event), which form his perspective on resurrection in its Jewish context, and b) his minority view on Matt 24 and 25 – which FP’s selectively quote, thinking him an ally – follow from his being a scholarly disciple of Caird, not some latent tendency to follow core tenants of full preterism.

(Notably, it is also quite evident from his commentary on Revelation that he follows Caird with the majority of scholars in supposing a later date for the Apocalypse and an anti-Roman context, contra the diminishing few who would hold to a pre-70 AD date and an association of Babylon with Jerusalem.)

Thanks, Doug! Any evidence for your ideas would be most welcome. 🙂

PaulT April 17, 2012 at 10:02 am

Perhaps Mr. Preston can explain why BDAG disagrees with his representation regarding the Greek grammar and Acts 24:15.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature* revised and edited by Frederick William Danker (BDAG = *the* world standard exegetical lexicon; brackets added)

1. To take place at a future point of time and so to be subsequent to another event, *be about to*, used with infinitive following. (a) […] with the future infinitive *mellw* denotes certainty that an event will occur in the future. *will certainly take place or be* Acts 11:28;24:15; 27:10. (b) with the aorist infinitive […] *be on the point of, be about to* […] Romans 8:18 […] Revelation 3:2, 16. (c) with the present infinitive […] (alpha) *be about to, be on the point of* […] *he was at the point of death* […] Luke 7:2 […] John 4:47 […] of heavenly glory 1 Peter 5:1, Cp. Luke 19:4; John 6:6; Acts 3:3; 5:35; 18:14; 21:27; 22:36; 23:27. — occasionally almost = *begin* […] Revelation 10:4 […] *when all things are are* (or *begin*) *to be accomplished* Mark 13:4; cp. Luke 21:7; Revelation 10:7.

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: