<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.preteristblog.com/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.preteristblog.com</link>
	<description>we can haz rezurekshun?</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 10:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by dee dee</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24416</link>
		<dc:creator>dee dee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 22:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24416</guid>
		<description>Oberserver, this is a repost from 2006.  I don't plan on re-reading and re-excepting this particular book.  I may have posted pertinent ones on that topic though back in 2006.  I haven't completely indexed the site yet, but if you go to the tags at the top of this post and hit on "The Resurrection of the Son of God" you will see all posts presently tagged with that.  Though again, I am not done tagging yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oberserver, this is a repost from 2006.  I don&#8217;t plan on re-reading and re-excepting this particular book.  I may have posted pertinent ones on that topic though back in 2006.  I haven&#8217;t completely indexed the site yet, but if you go to the tags at the top of this post and hit on &#8220;The Resurrection of the Son of God&#8221; you will see all posts presently tagged with that.  Though again, I am not done tagging yet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by Observer</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24414</link>
		<dc:creator>Observer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 15:09:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24414</guid>
		<description>DDW, may I suggest/request that as your schedule allows you also do excerpts covering Dr Wright's handling of the issues I mentioned earlier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DDW, may I suggest/request that as your schedule allows you also do excerpts covering Dr Wright&#8217;s handling of the issues I mentioned earlier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by dee dee</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24410</link>
		<dc:creator>dee dee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 23:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24410</guid>
		<description>Trent I haven't read it yet that I can recall, so I don't have an opinion on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trent I haven&#8217;t read it yet that I can recall, so I don&#8217;t have an opinion on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by Trent</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24409</link>
		<dc:creator>Trent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 23:39:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24409</guid>
		<description>Do you recommend Andrew Perriman's The Coming of the Son of Man? Does he say that after Matt. 23:31 is referring to the second coming or 70 AD?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you recommend Andrew Perriman&#8217;s The Coming of the Son of Man? Does he say that after Matt. 23:31 is referring to the second coming or 70 AD?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by dee dee</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24407</link>
		<dc:creator>dee dee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 12:23:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24407</guid>
		<description>I have disagree.  In his work, he thoroughly defends the idea that the CONSUMMATED age to come is the recreated universe.  He doesn't not whatsoever deny that the age to come has broken in with the passing away of the Old Testament economy.  I have no problems linking those passages together because I do not hold to a strict either/or interpretratation.  That is the cliff that leads one directly to hyperpreterism.  I am not only NOT near that cliff, I am on an entirely different mountain range altogether.... with Wright, on this issue at least.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have disagree.  In his work, he thoroughly defends the idea that the CONSUMMATED age to come is the recreated universe.  He doesn&#8217;t not whatsoever deny that the age to come has broken in with the passing away of the Old Testament economy.  I have no problems linking those passages together because I do not hold to a strict either/or interpretratation.  That is the cliff that leads one directly to hyperpreterism.  I am not only NOT near that cliff, I am on an entirely different mountain range altogether&#8230;. with Wright, on this issue at least.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by Observer</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24406</link>
		<dc:creator>Observer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 12:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24406</guid>
		<description>I agree that Dr Wright argues well for a physical resurrection but at the same time he makes statements that have some serious ramifications e.g. he seems to link 1 Thessalonians 4 with chapter 5 and 2 Thessalonians. This is tricky because 2 Thessalonians has generally been acknowldged as dealing with the AD70 event.

He also assumes (without proof as far as I can tell) that the age to come is the recreated universe. However it seems that the end of the age is associated with passing of the Old Covenant Economy.

So, while the book is very good, I think it comes wanting on the most crucial points, at least in the battle against hypers.


Happy moving.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that Dr Wright argues well for a physical resurrection but at the same time he makes statements that have some serious ramifications e.g. he seems to link 1 Thessalonians 4 with chapter 5 and 2 Thessalonians. This is tricky because 2 Thessalonians has generally been acknowldged as dealing with the AD70 event.</p>
<p>He also assumes (without proof as far as I can tell) that the age to come is the recreated universe. However it seems that the end of the age is associated with passing of the Old Covenant Economy.</p>
<p>So, while the book is very good, I think it comes wanting on the most crucial points, at least in the battle against hypers.</p>
<p>Happy moving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by dee dee</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24404</link>
		<dc:creator>dee dee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 01:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24404</guid>
		<description>That is simply an excerpt of a huge book.  I think his book in toto more than addresses those concerns.  And no matter how comprehensive a work is... there is always a "yeah but."  His work proves beyond any doubt as to the nature of the resurrection.

Unfortunately, my time to really dig into commenting on the blog itself is very limited.  I have considered turning off comments since I am basically pretty absent as I am in the middle of moving out of state and will be involved with that the rest of this year, but decided I didn't want to take that step... even though my interaction is severely limited.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is simply an excerpt of a huge book.  I think his book in toto more than addresses those concerns.  And no matter how comprehensive a work is&#8230; there is always a &#8220;yeah but.&#8221;  His work proves beyond any doubt as to the nature of the resurrection.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, my time to really dig into commenting on the blog itself is very limited.  I have considered turning off comments since I am basically pretty absent as I am in the middle of moving out of state and will be involved with that the rest of this year, but decided I didn&#8217;t want to take that step&#8230; even though my interaction is severely limited.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Wright Thinking about the Resurrection by Observer</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=169#comment-24403</link>
		<dc:creator>Observer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 16:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=169#comment-24403</guid>
		<description>What I found lacking in Dr Wright's handling of 1 Cor 15 is the issue of inheriting the kingdom (vs 50).

The discussion of nature of the Kingdom is important. is it a present reality or one yet to come? For Jesus says the kingdom shall be taken away from you and given to a people who will bring forth the fruit thereof.

Dr Wright needed to address what this kingdom is, when it will come and how enters or inherits it. It seems to me he just assumed that the kingdom is a recreated heaven and earth but that does not seem to be what the Bible teaches the kingdom is.

Dr Wright also did not deal with vs 56 which hypers link to Dan 7:12 and their theory about the connection between the passing of the torah and the resurrection.

Lastly Dr Wright failed to link the discourse with the OT source. Hypers can easily fit their theory into the OT quotationsbut Dr Wright did not deal with these sources satisfactorily (at least IMO).

Can u help me out with these issues?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I found lacking in Dr Wright&#8217;s handling of 1 Cor 15 is the issue of inheriting the kingdom (vs 50).</p>
<p>The discussion of nature of the Kingdom is important. is it a present reality or one yet to come? For Jesus says the kingdom shall be taken away from you and given to a people who will bring forth the fruit thereof.</p>
<p>Dr Wright needed to address what this kingdom is, when it will come and how enters or inherits it. It seems to me he just assumed that the kingdom is a recreated heaven and earth but that does not seem to be what the Bible teaches the kingdom is.</p>
<p>Dr Wright also did not deal with vs 56 which hypers link to Dan 7:12 and their theory about the connection between the passing of the torah and the resurrection.</p>
<p>Lastly Dr Wright failed to link the discourse with the OT source. Hypers can easily fit their theory into the OT quotationsbut Dr Wright did not deal with these sources satisfactorily (at least IMO).</p>
<p>Can u help me out with these issues?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Opportunities for Financial Support by The Preterist Podcast ~ 100% Heresy Free! &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ep.62- One Thing Leads to Another</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4473#comment-24390</link>
		<dc:creator>The Preterist Podcast ~ 100% Heresy Free! &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Ep.62- One Thing Leads to Another</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 01:29:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4473#comment-24390</guid>
		<description>[...] here for PayPal subscription options or for a one-time gift. My ministry Amazon wishlist can be found [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] here for PayPal subscription options or for a one-time gift. My ministry Amazon wishlist can be found [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Left Behind&#8211;Rebooted? by Jeffrey</title>
		<link>http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=6109#comment-24264</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=6109#comment-24264</guid>
		<description>Pretrib Rapture Pride
               
     Pretrib rapture promoters like Thomas Ice give the impression they know more than the early Church Fathers, the Reformers, the greatest Greek New Testament scholars including those who produced the KJV Bible, the founders of their favorite Bible schools, and even their own mentors!
     Ice's mentor, Dallas Sem. president John Walvoord, couldn't find anyone holding to pretrib before 1830 - and Walvoord called John Darby and his Brethren followers "the early pretribulationists" (RQ, pp. 160-62). Ice belittles Walvoord and claims that several pre-1830 persons, including "Pseudo-Ephraem" and a "Rev. Morgan Edwards," taught a pretrib rapture. Even though the first one viewed Antichrist's arrival as the only "imminent" event, Ice (and Grant Jeffrey) audaciously claim he expected an "imminent" pretrib rapture! And Ice (and John Bray) have covered up Edwards' historicism which made a pretrib rapture impossible! Google "Morgan Edwards' Rapture View" and journalist/historian Dave MacPherson's "Deceiving and Being Deceived" for documentation on these and similar historical distortions.
     The same pretrib defenders, when combing ancient books, deviously read "pretrib" into phrases like "before Armageddon," "before the final conflagration," and "escape all these things"!
     BTW, the KJV translators' other writings found in London's famed British Library (where MacPherson has researched) don't have even a hint of pretrib rapturism. Is it possible that Ice etc. have found pretrib "proof" in the KJV that its translators never found?
     Pretrib merchandisers like Ice claim that nothing is better pretrib proof than Rev. 3:10. They also cover up "Famous Rapture Watchers" (on Google) which shows how the greatest Greek NT scholars of all time interpreted it.
     Pretrib didn't flourish in America much before the 1909 Scofield Bible which has pretribby "explanatory notes" in its margins. Not seen in the margins was jailed forger Scofield's criminal record throughout his life that David Lutzweiler has documented in his recent book "The Praise of Folly" which is available online.
     Biola University's doctrinal statement says Christ's return is "premillennial" and "before the Tribulation." Although universities stand for "academic freedom," Biola has added these narrow, restrictive phrases - non-essentials the founders purposely didn't include in their original doctrinal statement when Biola was just a small Bible institute! And other Christian schools have also belittled their founders.
     Ice, BTW, has a "Ph.D" issued by a tiny Texas school that wasn't authorized to issue degrees! Ice now says that he's working on another "Ph.D" via the University of Wales in Britain. For light on the degrees of Ice's scholarliness, Google "Bogus degree scandal prompts calls to wind up University of Wales," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," "be careful in polemics - Peripatetic Learning," and "Walvoord Melts Ice." Also Google "Thomas Ice (Hired Gun)" - featured by media luminary Joe Ortiz on his Jan. 30, 2013 "End Times Passover" blog.
     Other fascinating Google articles include "The Unoriginal John Darby," "X-raying Margaret," "Margaret Macdonald's Rapture Chart," "Pretrib Rapture's Missing Lines," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "Pretrib Rapture Politics," "Pretrib Rapture Secrets," "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," "Pretrib Hypocrisy," "Pretrib Rapture Secrecy," and "Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism" - most from the author of "The Rapture Plot," the most accurate documentation on pretrib rapture history.
     Can anyone guess who the last proud pretrib rapture holdout will be?
(Postscript: For another jolt or two Google "The Background Obama Can't Cover Up.")

/ Preceding was spotted on the net. Interesting, eh? /</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pretrib Rapture Pride</p>
<p>     Pretrib rapture promoters like Thomas Ice give the impression they know more than the early Church Fathers, the Reformers, the greatest Greek New Testament scholars including those who produced the KJV Bible, the founders of their favorite Bible schools, and even their own mentors!<br />
     Ice&#8217;s mentor, Dallas Sem. president John Walvoord, couldn&#8217;t find anyone holding to pretrib before 1830 - and Walvoord called John Darby and his Brethren followers &#8220;the early pretribulationists&#8221; (RQ, pp. 160-62). Ice belittles Walvoord and claims that several pre-1830 persons, including &#8220;Pseudo-Ephraem&#8221; and a &#8220;Rev. Morgan Edwards,&#8221; taught a pretrib rapture. Even though the first one viewed Antichrist&#8217;s arrival as the only &#8220;imminent&#8221; event, Ice (and Grant Jeffrey) audaciously claim he expected an &#8220;imminent&#8221; pretrib rapture! And Ice (and John Bray) have covered up Edwards&#8217; historicism which made a pretrib rapture impossible! Google &#8220;Morgan Edwards&#8217; Rapture View&#8221; and journalist/historian Dave MacPherson&#8217;s &#8220;Deceiving and Being Deceived&#8221; for documentation on these and similar historical distortions.<br />
     The same pretrib defenders, when combing ancient books, deviously read &#8220;pretrib&#8221; into phrases like &#8220;before Armageddon,&#8221; &#8220;before the final conflagration,&#8221; and &#8220;escape all these things&#8221;!<br />
     BTW, the KJV translators&#8217; other writings found in London&#8217;s famed British Library (where MacPherson has researched) don&#8217;t have even a hint of pretrib rapturism. Is it possible that Ice etc. have found pretrib &#8220;proof&#8221; in the KJV that its translators never found?<br />
     Pretrib merchandisers like Ice claim that nothing is better pretrib proof than Rev. 3:10. They also cover up &#8220;Famous Rapture Watchers&#8221; (on Google) which shows how the greatest Greek NT scholars of all time interpreted it.<br />
     Pretrib didn&#8217;t flourish in America much before the 1909 Scofield Bible which has pretribby &#8220;explanatory notes&#8221; in its margins. Not seen in the margins was jailed forger Scofield&#8217;s criminal record throughout his life that David Lutzweiler has documented in his recent book &#8220;The Praise of Folly&#8221; which is available online.<br />
     Biola University&#8217;s doctrinal statement says Christ&#8217;s return is &#8220;premillennial&#8221; and &#8220;before the Tribulation.&#8221; Although universities stand for &#8220;academic freedom,&#8221; Biola has added these narrow, restrictive phrases - non-essentials the founders purposely didn&#8217;t include in their original doctrinal statement when Biola was just a small Bible institute! And other Christian schools have also belittled their founders.<br />
     Ice, BTW, has a &#8220;Ph.D&#8221; issued by a tiny Texas school that wasn&#8217;t authorized to issue degrees! Ice now says that he&#8217;s working on another &#8220;Ph.D&#8221; via the University of Wales in Britain. For light on the degrees of Ice&#8217;s scholarliness, Google &#8220;Bogus degree scandal prompts calls to wind up University of Wales,&#8221; &#8220;Thomas Ice (Bloopers),&#8221; &#8220;be careful in polemics - Peripatetic Learning,&#8221; and &#8220;Walvoord Melts Ice.&#8221; Also Google &#8220;Thomas Ice (Hired Gun)&#8221; - featured by media luminary Joe Ortiz on his Jan. 30, 2013 &#8220;End Times Passover&#8221; blog.<br />
     Other fascinating Google articles include &#8220;The Unoriginal John Darby,&#8221; &#8220;X-raying Margaret,&#8221; &#8220;Margaret Macdonald&#8217;s Rapture Chart,&#8221; &#8220;Pretrib Rapture&#8217;s Missing Lines,&#8221; &#8220;Edward Irving is Unnerving,&#8221; &#8220;Pretrib Rapture Politics,&#8221; &#8220;Pretrib Rapture Secrets,&#8221; &#8220;Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty,&#8221; &#8220;Pretrib Hypocrisy,&#8221; &#8220;Pretrib Rapture Secrecy,&#8221; and &#8220;Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism&#8221; - most from the author of &#8220;The Rapture Plot,&#8221; the most accurate documentation on pretrib rapture history.<br />
     Can anyone guess who the last proud pretrib rapture holdout will be?<br />
(Postscript: For another jolt or two Google &#8220;The Background Obama Can&#8217;t Cover Up.&#8221;)</p>
<p>/ Preceding was spotted on the net. Interesting, eh? /</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
