Unsound and Informally Fallacious Preterist Arguments for Mark 13:24-27

Heythrop Journal 64 (6):796-811 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The following article evaluates two common arguments for preterist interpretations of Mark 13:24-27, collectively dubbed the ‘time-text’ argument. These two arguments support symbolic and/or historicised interpretations. Our thesis is that the first argument is unsound and the second commits the informal fallacy of false dilemma. Owing to these problems, the arguments and preterist interpretations should be rejected in favour of more plausible futurist interpretations.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy.James Goetz - 2012 - Resource Publications, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Apocalyptic Themes in Biblical Literature.Adela Yarbro Collins - 1999 - Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 53 (2):117-130.
Girard and the spaces of apocalyptic.Cyril O'regan - 2012 - Modern Theology 28 (1):112-140.
Can 'Big' Questions be Begged?David Botting - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (1):23-36.
Fallacious Arguments in Aristotle’s Rhetoric II.24.Christof Rapp - 2012 - History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis 15 (1):122-158.
Leibniz on 'prophets', prophecy, and revelation.Daniel J. Cook - 2009 - Religious Studies 45 (3):269-287.
Ad Hominem.George Wrisley - 2018-05-09 - In Robert Arp, Steven Barbone & Michael Bruce (eds.), Bad Arguments. Wiley. pp. 77–82.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-10-21

Downloads
13 (#1,030,551)

6 months
7 (#419,303)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Elton Hollon
Ventura College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references