Late date of Preterism, an argument against it?

[eschaton]

What we have is a fragment of what was actually written. And it is a bare fact that much of what we do have isn't translated into English yet.

I prefer to take most of time to study the Scriptures. I find your hyperdulia of the ECF disturbing, but whatever rocks your boat.

Hyperdulia???

hy·per·du·li·a   [hahy-per-doo-lee-uh, -dyoo-] Show IPA
noun Roman Catholic Theology .
the veneration offered to the Virgin Mary as the most exalted of creatures.

It's a shame people don't know where the NT came from. The writings were preserved for us by the early church, and it wasn't until the fourth century that the 27 books were more or less accepted. What does that have to do with the worship of Mary? I don't know a lot about the worship of Mary, but the emergence of a specific Marian liturgical system was in the 5th century following the First Council of Ephesus in 431. That doesn't have anything to do with the apostolic fathers. We only have a fragment of any ancient writings, but there are more Christian writings from the first few centuries than either one of us will probably ever read. The NT teaches that the Gospel was first spread by the oral teaching of the apostles, not by reading a NT which didn't exist at the time. There's nothing wrong with reading the writings of some of those they taught to enhance our understanding of the scriptures. Some of those who wrote were martyrs for Christianity. I would consider their writings before those of modern writers.

Yes, the dispensationalism we have today is mainly a product of 19th century literalism, but so is today's preterism.

[eschaton]

Well thx for all the answers. :)

I'm definitely no hyper-preterist, just fyi ;)

Modern preterism and premillennialism have both been traced to the Jesuits as a response to the Reformation.