[bluepistolero]

Actually, not really. I have read and re-read the text several times and have not found even the most elementary landmarks presented that would be needed for a study of the book in any kind of serious scholarship. Eschatology is never lightly undertaken, especially by responsible scholars.

The theological problems posed by eschatology are numerous and complex. Adequate answers must take into account at least four considerations. First, the gospel prophecies were never intended to be understood with unimaginative literalness. Just as it is misguided to mine Genesis for scientific data about the physical universe, so too is it wrong to turn the similes and metaphors of NT eschatology into information about future cosmological states.

Salvation-history is not a pre-determined scheme so much as it is a dynamic relationship between God and his people. The Lord can shorten the interim period (Mk 13-20) or lengthen it. (Luke 13:6-9) His Grace means that history is open and that there can be no eschatological timetable. True prophecy accordingly, does not so much predict the future as isolate one possible course of events, one which can be communicated either as a warning, which may or may not, be heeded, or as a promise whose conditions may or may not, be met.

The heart of eschatology is not when or what, but Who, not a schedule or a plan, but a person. The role of the Gospels, culminating in, The Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ is to move us to contemplate the future not by giving us a blueprint, but by relating all to Jesus, Messiah and Son of Man.

For more reading: D.C. Allison, Jr. The End of the Ages has Come (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1985) GR Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God(Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1986); H. Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke (London: Faberand Faber 1960); C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments New York: Willett, Clark, 1937) E.E.Ellis, Eschatology in Luke FBBS 30; Philadelphia, Fortress, 1972); J Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (2nd rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scibner's Sons, 1972) A.J. Mattill, Jr., Luke and the last Things (Dillsboro: Western North Carolina, 1979); N. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1976); W. Willis, ed., The Kingdom of God in 20th Century Interpretation (Peabody, MA; Hendrickson, 1987)

[P-Marlowe]

First, the gospel prophecies were never intended to be understood with unimaginative literalness. Just as it is misguided to mine Genesis for scientific data about the physical universe, so too is it wrong to turn the similes and metaphors of NT eschatology into information about future cosmological states.

And I suppose you have scriptures that support your theory?

Frankly I can deduce by your comments that you do not truly believe the first chapters of the Bible as being literally true. I think it would be safe to deduce that you believe that Adam was not a special creation, but a product of divinely guided evolution and that God could not possibly have created the heavens and the earth in the equivalent of 6 literal 24 hour days. I think in that case you have more faith in evolutionists than you do in scripture. Be that as it may.

For you to claim that the end time prophecies are not to be taken literally presumes much, since God clearly fulfilled every prophecy concerning Christ's first coming literally. As Buggman points out, if the prophecies of his first coming came to pass literally, why should we assume that the prophecies of his second coming would not come to pass literally.

Just so we know where you are coming from... Do you literally believe the story of Noah? Do you literally believe the story of Jonah?

[blue-duncan]

From a glance at your references it is easy to see why you do not and cannot and will not understand what Buggman is trying to say. You are reading him through the lenses of Realized Eschatology and Process Theology. Your references, Jeremias and his student Perrin, are disciples of C.H.Dodd, the dean of Realized Eschatology and liberal Kingdom theory. The only conservative writer you cite is Beasley-Murray.

[Buggman]

In other words, you just don't like what I have to say. Not that you can provide any real support for your declaration that my work is unscholarly--you're just going to throw mud, make some meaningless chatter about how complex the issue of eschatology is and how the Bible doesn't really mean what it says, and be wise in your own conceits.

I submit myself and my every belief to the Scriptures; you seek to judge them. If that makes me a fool in your eyes, then I praise Yeshua that I am God's fool instead of a fool of the world.