> I'm glad you included the H at the front as it is the first HUMBLE thing Ive > heard you say (and the last).
What are you talking about? Everything I say is humble. :) > Your understanding of eschatology is grossly > flawed and the majority opinion You lost me right there. On matters of truth, I care not a whit about majority opinion. Deference to majority opinion is not humility but laziness. Didn't someone fairly important to our faith say "Let God be true, and every man a liar" ...? I might ask for a particular example of the "gross flaw" but I suspect you'll just stay in Assertion Land as usual. > on such topics vary considerably with yours > (just as in politics). I don't go out of my way to be contrariwise. I just refuse to let other people tell me what is fashionable to believe, or believe it just because it's more popular. We're different that way, apparently. > Perhaps you could ask yourself about what Revelation > even exists for. Let's examine the first few paragraphs of Revelation, shall we? For it tells us what its stated purpose is (emphasis added). - - - 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to shew unto his servants things which MUST SHORTLY COME TO PASS; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND. 4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: .... - - - And it ends similarly in chapter 22: - - - 20 He which testifieth these things saith, "SURELY I COME QUICKLY." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. - - - I am a literalist when it comes to interpretation. However, that does not mean every metaphor has a literal meaning. Rather, it means that I interpret each work on its own terms, as it was literally intended. If it's a work of poetry, I treat it as poetry. If it's a boring list of genealogies, I treat it as history. If it's a parable, I treat it as a parable. Read everything in its context and don't abuse personal pronouns (e.g., "you" does not mean "me" it means "to whom the speaker is presently speaking in context".... stretching it beyond that is dangerous and usually erroneous.) So it was a letter to then-existing seven churches of Asia, warning them of spiritual and physical things about to happen imminently. All symbolism must be understood in that context. All manner of futuristic hocus pocus is imaginable, in terms of unpacking its rich metaphors and stark imagery, if we forget this context. People who attack the preterist position often say, as Geoff basically did, that we who believe it's all been fulfilled "ignore" revelation. Before discussing such matters with these people I require that they read "The Parousia" by James Stuart Russell, published in 1878. <http://www.amazon.com/Parousia-Critical-Inquiry-Testament-Doctrine/dp/096213113X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261661771&sr=8-2> That book has the most exhaustive, coherent line-by-line treatment of the book of Revelation I've ever read (almost 200 of its 600 pages devoted to that one prophetic work), all in the context of the total Net Testament treatment of the topic of the "second coming," including the gospels and the various letters of Paul et al. Additional required reading are the complete works of Josephus. Russell relates all of that to the events described by Josephus of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by the Romans, after which Israel ceased to exist as a nation for almost 2000 years. Surely, prophecy had SOMETHING to say about that? So, my basic position: Something major happened shortly after Revelation was written, within that generation, as Jesus Himself promised when He said, "Verily, verily, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." (Mark 13:30). It was the utter destruction of Jerusalem, including the Temple (not one stone of which, indeed, was left unturned---abomination of desolation, anyone?), and the official end of the old covenant. It was a metaphysical turning point, after which, no man can claim salvation by the works of the old law. As it says in Jeremiah 31:31-33: - - - 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they will be my people. - - - In other words, it's wrong to impose on God fulfillment of the old covenant promises, because Israel broke that covenant for good. You hear charlatans all the time holding God to the old covenant "because He never breaks his promises" but they neglect to observe that God himself declared that old covenant null and void for noncompliance on the part of Israel. So, on some important level, IMHO, AD 70 marks the point in time, after which the old covenant promises no longer apply, and the new covenant became "in force". A window from the time of Christ's Resurrection to the fateful day in AD 70 when Israel was destroyed, but it closed that day. Any other interpretation, least of all any that apply to modern Israel, a fabrication of the UN, and further proof of the curse (vs. the blessing) that Israel earned in breaking the old covenant. Mind you, I'm not anti-Israel per se. Frankly, I think they're our best ally in the ME. But I don't base that on theology and frankly I don't think they deserve better treatment than they earn as an actual ally, like any other nation. As allies go, they rank high, but to trust them wholly with our national interests is probably not a great idea--at least, not based on religious reasons. Now, my interpretation of Revelation and other prophetic scripture does not preclude God doing whatever He wants in our time, using whatever vessels He chooses. I am just not convinced that the old and new testament prophecies remain as yet unfulfilled *on their own terms* and so I don't try to use them to *predict* what's going to happen *in modern terms*. This is what modern interpretations do that I find objectionable. All that we need for salvation has been accomplished. The Kingdom of God has been "at hand" i.e. "near" ever since Christ commissioned the apostles. It's a spiritual reality ever after, not a future proposition. We just need to adjust our understanding of what God meant by it. Much like the Jews, expecting in their carnal minds a conquering king, got a carpenter, we have a spiritual Kingdom whose reality we deny to our peril. - Publius -- "It ought never to be forgotten, that a firm union of this country, under an efficient government, will probably be an increasing object of jealousy to more than one nation of Europe; and that enterprises to subvert it will sometimes originate in the intrigues of foreign powers, and will seldom fail to be patronized and abetted by some of them. Its preservation, therefore ought in no case that can be avoided, to be committed to the guardianship of any but those whose situation will uniformly beget an immediate interest in the faithful and vigilant performance of the trust." [Federalist Papers #59] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
