Edski “I’m Talking and I Can’t Shut Up” Babinski left another one of those “advertise a link” comments that had nothing to do with the post he commented on, and it makes for a good Forge posting to deflate him with (for only the 576,876th time in the last 10 years). Mainly because it shows how, as usual, Edski's got the cart before the horse, and his head inserted where the horse doesn't shine.
I'm sure you'll have a few too, before your debate with Carrier, "a few" buckets of KFC.
When the Skeppies start making cracks about my weight (which they haven’t heard is no longer even an issue), you can tell they have sound arguments to offer. But for the record – no, Edski. I hate fast food, especially KFC, and fried food is especially on my list of dislikes. I cannot eat more than one piece of fried chicken before I get tired of it. But this, note, comes from a guy whose own scholarship is the equivalent of deep fried Twinkies.
By the way, another preterist got enlightened, at least partially so. Read about it here:
This is the link Edski wanted to advertise, and we won’t give him the satisfaction. But basically, the author was somehow persuaded by Thom Stark’s treatment of N. T. Wright that Wright’s preterist views were not perfect. Only one problem with that: Wright is not and never has been a preterist. He denies the label. As “Jaltus” of TheologyWeb, himself a Biblical scholar, said in November 2003:
I hate to tell you, all you preterists, but N.T. Wright is not of your ilk.
He specifically mentioned at the ETS conference in Atlanta that he thought preterists were severly and "seriously mistaken" and that their views were "obviously wrong" about the Lord returning in 70 AD. He did say that 70 AD was a vindication of Jesus' words in Luke and Mark, but that Matthew was split into both eschatological and 70 AD predictions.
So the blog author’s riff that Wright’s teachings “are basically preteristic” demonstrates a serious ignorance. Yes, he has some aspects that preterists find useful. But Stark’s chapter on this (which, by the way, is monumentally pathetic in itself) found my response one in which I spent little time defending Wright from Stark (akin to defending Godzilla from an ant, as it were) and more time explaining why Stark’s critique didn’t affect preterism. But I spent little time doing either, since most of what Stark offered, even against Wright, had little effect on my views anyway.
Edski then says he is waiting for me to change my mind on preterism, since I also did on “a hell of torture, and even on the efficacy of citing OT verses as NT proof texts. “ Well, Edski, sorry to break your wind-up toy, but it ain’t happenin’. All three of those views are solidly rooted in the data – the anthropology, the literature, all of it – and the only way it will change is if all of history is revealed as a hoax. Which will happen about the same time you get a brain.
Edski closes with this tried refrain, the one he only uses when he hasn’t got any better ideas:
And please tell us all what books and tracts you read prior to converting to Christianity. We'd all love to know what an "intellectual" choice you made way back then.
Sure, you would, Edski – because you sure can’t argue against the intellectual stances I hold now, can you?