Talk:Christian eschatology/Archive 1

Archive

Reverted deletion of older discussion. This should be 'archived'. I'm not sure how to do it, but you end up with a link to the older comments near the top of the page. ^rossnixon 01:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. --gdm (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Major work needed

This page needs some major work. First of all Preterism should be seperated from the different points of view on millarianism. It should be in a section about the debates if the apocolyptic teachings were meant for the time immediately after Jesus's death (the fall of jerusalem "preterism"), the full history of time after jesus death, or the end times of the antichrist.

Then a big disclaimer needs to be put in about millianirism, it is mostly modern protestsant sects which have this view, and the amount of time spent discussing it in the article is too big relative to the whole issue.

I will have to look at the way they are defined in the articles, but it seems at first glance that "post tribulation rapture" doesn't make sense, the word rapture usually referring to some sort of taking to heaven of christian believers and allowing a period of time afterwards of life for non believers.]

There are many more debates over the meaning of the apocalypse that could be put in this article, one of the most interesting being the premise that any momentus events or sadvanced warning signs such as the moon turning blood red or something else describe specifically in the bible if it were to occour would automatically cause mass conversions from people who realize that its comming true, and would sort of negate the point of free will.

Timeline?

I once saw a timeline chart that summarized the different views of the end of the world. Would be nice to reproduce here.

Biblical contradictions on afterlife

What the heck is the following big block of text doing here? it is also in the article. It belongs in neither place, it should rest among the dead passages:

Some books of the Bible deny the existence of the afterlife. (The following quotes are from the new JPS translation.)

Isaiah 39:18 "For it is not Sheol that praises You, Not [the land of] Death that extols you; Nor do they who descend into the Pit hope for your grace. The living, only the living can give thanks to you.

um... that quote does not deny an afterlife: if "the living can give thanks", that does not mean we cannot include those experiencing "life after death" among the living.

Psalms 6:6 "For there is no praise of You among the dead; in Sheol, who can acclaim you?" and Psalms 115:17 "The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor any who go down into silence."

um... those quotes do not deny an afterlife: if the dead cannot praise, that does not speak anything about who do experience "life after death".

Job 7:7-10 "Consider that my life is but wind; I shall never see happiness again....As a cloud fades away, so whoever goes down into Sheol does not come up.."

um... see the above criticisms

Ecclesiastes. 9:4-5 "For he who is reckoned among the living has something to look forward to - even a live dog is better than a dead lion - since the living know that they will die. But the dead know nothing; they have no more recompense, for even the memory of them has died."

um... see the above criticisms

It is only in the book of Daniel - the last Biblical book written - that a "modern" understanding of an afterlife appears. From a Christian point of view, this aforementioned proposed denial of the possibility of afterlife may be interpreted in a different manner: One might see it as a distinction between the "dead" and the "resurrected dead", rather than a denial of the afterlife. The "dead" would represent those who have died outside of God's grace, who by choice do or did not follow God, and thus are dead (spiritually and bodily). The ones who go to be with God, by their choice of faith or actions depending on the religion, would be the "resurrected dead", "living dead," or simply, "living."

When the Sadducees were testing him, Christ explained this difference by pointing out that God is the God of the living, not of the dead, yet saying that God is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, three apparently dead people.

In Mathew 22:31-32 (the next quotes are from the New International Version), Jesus says, "But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.'"

Looking at the above "contradictory to the afterlife" scriptures in this light, one might suggest the quotes from Isaiah, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes to mean that those who have chosen not to praise God are "dead," but those who have chosen to praise God have been given eternal life and thus are "living" or "resurrected dead." Rather than saying there isn't an afterlife, the author is simply saying in each case that those who do not have "eternal life" will not or cannot praise God (perhaps because their choice to not praise God in life is permanent in the afterlife).

Furthermore, the words in Job are a metaphor. The construction suggests that the idea is being used as a metaphor and is not so much a fact as a generality. "Consider that my life is but wind; I shall never see happiness again....As a cloud fades away, so whoever goes down into Sheol does not come up." In other words, in general, whoever goes down into Sheol does not come up. But also, the whole selection of text is,

"Remember, O God, that my life is but a breath; my eyes will never see happiness again. 8 The eye that now sees me will see me no longer; you will look for me, but I will be no more. 9 As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so he who goes down to the grave [Sheol] does not return. 10 He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more."

Job does not say whoever goes to Sheol lives no more; he says a person who goes to Sheol does not return. Reading further in the passage, one finds he is speaking about returning "to his house again." In other words, a person does not come back to regular, physical life. This does not bar resurrection in the spirit (or even in the body) to an afterlife.

It is important to note that Job was wrong about never seeing happiness again (again, he was exaggerating using standard literary technique, but he certainly saw happiness later. See Job 42). What does that say about his comments on Sheol?

It's improving

This article is looking good. Here are a couple of things I know about Eastern Orthodox eschatology that aren't already included. Some of it might be interesting enough to include in the article, much of it probably isn't. I'll let others decide. :-)

• The Book of Revelation is the only New Testament book that is never read publicly as part of the regular cycle of Gospel and Epistle readings.
• Christ's second coming is anticipated in the words of a prayer said by the celebrating priest at every Divine Liturgy. A paraphrase from my memory is "We give you thanks for all that you have done for us: your birth, your death on the cross, your third day rising from the dead, your ascension into heaven, and your glorious second coming." Note that the future event is referred to in the past tense. I don't think anything else is said about it in the Divine Liturgy, but could be mistaken.
• In their iconography in the nave of a church building, it is very standard practice to place the icon of the Incarnation, Mary holding a very young Jesus, so it's on the worshiper's left as they face the altar, and an icon of Christ enthroned on Judgment Day on the worshipper's right. In the latter icon, Christ is sitting on his throne, holding the closed Book of Life in his left hand (signifying that we don't know whose names are written therein), and extending his right hand to the observer in a sign of blessing. As always, his face is dispassionate, unclouded by emotion. Standard teaching is that we are living in between these two events, the Incarnation and the Second Coming, and therefore are in the "last days". Of course this has been the case for the entire history of the Church. Those two icons are often placed in that arrangement on family altars at home, and are paired as a traveling diptych as well.

Hope this is helpful, and that perhaps some part of the above might be worth integrating. Another more general idea to include is the idea of "partially realized" eschatology, the idea that a prophecy has been fulfilled, but not as completely as it is going to be fulfilled. The easiest example is that Jesus said in the Gospels, "The Kingdom of God has come" and yet we still anticipate a time when God will more fully, obviously, or completely on earth. Wesley

Still confused

Well, looking back on this article, I'm afraid that I've put it into a very confused state. It focuses almost entirely on millenialism, and I edited it toward the conclusion that millenialism is not a central issue of Christian eschatology, which is true, but I have not said what the central issues are. Millenialism is certainly essential to some systems - and these have been mentioned as topics upon which Christians disagree; leaving no conclusion about what the central issues are. Who could get an idea of what Christian eschatology is, then? ... — Mkmcconn 07:03 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

I restructured the entry, adding headings and brief descriptions of the topics of Christian eschatology that in my opinion were under-treated. Much room for expansion, now, with less confusion (I hope). — Mkmcconn 05:24 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

I wonder about this statement:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the saints in heaven attain to a direct intuition of the essence of God, in such a way that nothing created intervenes as the medium by which God communicates knowledge of Himself.

I don't know, but I would be surprised if this were true. I thought that the Catholics and Orthodox agreed that God was unknowable in His essence, by anyone at any time. Does this need clarification? Wesley

I thought that might catch your attention. It's from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Heaven [1] exerpted below — Mkmcconn

==== Benedict XII (1336) ====

We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise tbat nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868).

Looks like you're right. Interesting that that quote was made so near the time of the controversies between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria. I do notice that later in the Catholic Encyclopedia entry, it says that God remains incomprehensible to the saints, even though they see Him. Should that perhaps be added to the above sentence, or would it only add confusion? Wesley 17:34 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

I'm prone to believe that the definition quoted is not the most felicitous expression of Catholic belief. Anything you want to do to try to make it more palatable, I'm sure would be an improvement to it. — Mkmcconn 19:50 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)

I noticed while reviewing that the latter portion of the article indicates that some of the Church of Christ adhere to anilhilationism. Having grown up and studied in the group, I know of only TWO who teach it out of 100s. BTW, Most (with exception of perhaps a dozen congregations) of the churches of Christ are amillennial. Raymer

We must fairly represent historic view and history

Hello I am a preterist. Of the historic kind. Unfortunately on the Internet the word has been usurped by a tiny but outrageously vocal minority that is ahistoric. While of course any articles must mention all views, but it must be factual and neutral/historical. preterims is a view with a long, long history in the church, and the faction that now is very vocal has departed from that history significantly and is heterodox with regards to the historic creeds of the Church. Though they claim to be conservative, inerrantist, ie fundamentalists, no major conservative denomination, group, or equivalent considers this a valid "Christian" eschatology though there is disagreement on whether its adherents can still be rightly called Christians. Even amongst those who would consider the "hyperpreterists" to be Christian, there is a HUGE majority that would say they are Christians with heretical eschatology. While an article need not take sides (previous versions of the preterism pieces were obviously written by and slanted for hyperpreterism), it should represent this very real dispute. It is dishonest not to do so. This is a young heterodox movement that goes against the historical use of the phrase. I edited the preterism pieces here (my first edit was just as bad as what I was railing against, so I read the Wikipedia guidelines and revised it to be neutral. The hyperpreterists may not like that they are controversial and widely regarded as heretics but not liking something does not make it not factual or even not neutral. for instance it would be in error not to mention that Mormons are not accepted as Christian by conservative groups. This is simply a fact. The Mormons may still be right but an Encyclopedia must report facts. The last preterism article stumped for hyperpreterism by stating that partial preterists believe such and such "which flies in the fact of the New Testament" - or something very similar. That is totally improper I see after reading the guidelines.

So I put in a more neutral article. If there is a disagreement on its neutrality rather than edit wars, we need to discuss. I believe it is fair, and any negativity to the hyperpreterists in it is simply a fact of history - it is a fact that their doctrine is widely denounced. I make no bones that I am very very vocal against the hyperpreterist, I am known for that, and that is my mission. However, I did take the effort to write a neutral piece (after initially writing a very biased piece).

Sincerely, Dee Dee Warren, proprietress of www.preteristlist.com

preteristlist@gamail.com

a source?

Can anyone find a source for this, "These sacrifices will be done not only in the coming Tribulation..." I know many (all?) dispensationalists believe there will be sacrifices in the Millennium but are there sacrifices during the tribulation also? Liblamb 18:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read that dispensationalists see the Jews re-instituting animal sacrifices at the rebuilding of the temple, but this would seem to be of a different nature than the Christian re-institution during the millenium. To my recollection, both are addressed in Things to Come by J. Dwight Pentecost (ISBN: 0310308909). Regards, Jim Ellis 18:18, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The idea of sacrifices of any kind during the Millennium is an unusual one for which there is no support in Scripture. See under the subheading "Postmillennialism" in the article. --gdm (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

dispensationalism is heretical?

"Some regard dispensational premillennialism to be heretical since the doctrine appears to depart from the doctrines of grace." Can anyone cite a source of the "some" who regard dispensational premillennialism as heretical? Liblamb 16:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My latest edit clarified that it is only dispensational premill that sees a re-institution of animal sacrifices. Saying some view it as "heretical" was already in the text. I agree that without a source cited, we should consider a less inflammatory statement. Regards, Jim Ellis 18:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I revised the subject wording to eliminate the term "heretical" but included a cited reference to the idea being "abhorrent" to some. Jim Ellis 19:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Much better wording. I'm very glad to see some work being done on this very haphazardly constructed article (I cringe to see so much of my original Sunday School lesson still poking through here and there!). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good edits. I tried to clarify it a little more and removed the word "bloody." I would think all animal sacrifices were bloody and therefore the word seems needless. It would really be nice to have an article on Premillennialism and move some of this material into that article. I'm too lazy at the moment though. (I'm usually in maintenance mode.) Does this seem like a good idea if I get the motivation up? Liblamb 20:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article on Premillennialism is probably needed. There are already separate ones on amillennialism (a stub) and preterism. I may look at doing so if you are not inclined. Including the info from this article should not be a problem. Jim Ellis 22:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

(Cleanup) Issues

• The phrase "In Christian theology, eschatology is the study of the conclusion of God's purposes" seems a little too broad. It also implies that God is only considered useful up to this point, unless it is meant to be God's purposes for man which wouldnt make sense as Christians believe in an eternal afterlife. The entire sentence is far to complex for the average reader (myself included) to comprehend.

• Where did the "Last things" come from? Did an editor make that up because there was no precedent to describe signs of the Day of Judgement or is there a source from which this name was taken?

• "Christian eschatology concerns the things hoped for, but have yet to be revealed" ...what is that referring to? What does that even mean?

• I would like to delete: "for Christians living now, which are discussed by Christians under the category of "Christian eschatology"." - because eschatology only affects Christians living now if you believe that it has already begun and it has already been established that this page concerns Christian eschatology.

• "prophecies and other doctrines" should be "other doctrines and prophecies"

• I would like to delete: "supposed to be extraordinarily gifted with insight into spirituality, or" it undermines and then overstates the point and all thats needed to get the point across is the rest of the sentence.

• "Such extra-biblical revelations have additional eschatological significance for those who believe them." - which would be...?

• I would like to delete: "However, regardless of particular differences between sects, in general, Christian eschatology concerns those future things in which the Christian is instructed to believe expectantly for both creation generally and for himself. All Christians have thus far died, obviously without seeing the second coming of Christ. Most Christians living expect to "fall asleep in the Lord", to die, and hope that their bodies will be interred with dignity awaiting the resurrection from the dead. In fact," due to its pointlessness.

• I would like to replace "it is fundamental to nearly all traditions of Christianity that death and dying will not be finally removed from the earth until the second coming of Christ. Suffering, disease, injustice and war will continue until the end of the world, according to the Christian view of last things." with: "Nearly all traditions of Christianity believe that suffering, disease, injustice and death will continue until the second coming of Christ and the end of the world."

• The next four boldfaced titles (Suffering and disease, Persecution and martyrdom, Injustice, Poverty and war, and Summary) should be made into sections separate from the section currently entitled Last Things.

• I would like to replace "belief in life after death" with "the afterlife".

• I would like to delete: "Therefore, a brief discussion of a few passages of the Bible, especially prior to Christianity, would be relevant." The Bible prior to Christianity...? Is this referring to the Tanakh?

Any thoughts or opposition? freestylefrappe 01:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I hope this answers some of your questions; and thank you for your interest in the article.

1. "Study of last things" is simple etymology. It is what the word, eschatology. means.
2. In many traditions of Christianity, there are other means by which God's will for the present and the future is revealed: these things "revealed" are "things hoped for, but not yet revealed" (I think it used to say "fulfilled" - at any rate, that's what it means).
3. The "brief discussion of ... " came from another Wikipedia article, that kept being deleted because it didn't quite fit there. It is in need of work. The formatting of that section is not standard, and needs cleanup.
4. Delete all sermonic material. The original essay was a Sunday School lesson, and despite a lot of hacking since it was merged in here, much of that material and tone survives (and weakens the article).

Thanks — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

To-do List

Here's a list of more specific sites where people can go more in-depth on individual eschalogical issues. A lot of these sites still need work. The list is not exhaustive, by any means, so feel free to add new links or suggested links to it (the ones in red don't exist yet). If you feel up to contributing, go for it!

144,000; Amillennialism; Angels; Antichrist; Beast; Beast from the Land; Beast from the Sea; Book of Life; Bottomless Pit (Abyss); False Prophet; Futurism; Great White Throne Judgment (Last/Final Judgment); Heaven; Hell; Jesus (The Lamb, etc.); Lake of Fire; Midtribulation Rapture; Millennium; New Earth; New Jerusalem; Number of the Beast (666); Postmillennialism; Posttribulation Rapture; Pretribulation Rapture; Premillennialism; Preterism; Pre-Wrath Rapture; Rapture; Satan (The Dragon); Seven Bowls; Seven Asian Churches; Seven Seals; Seven Trumpets.

Midtribulation rapture edit

I temporarily moved the following phrase and sentence from the "Midtribulation Rapture" section to this discussion page until they can be polished up a little:

i.e. after 3 7/24 years or 1335 days or 44 1/2 months.

1290 days midpoint + 1290 days = 1335 + 1245 Days of Trumpets +- = 5280+- days as the time period of the Tribulation and Great Tribulation Desolation Decrees of Revelation and Daniel Prophecy.

As the explanation stands, it is incomprehensible to the general reader. It needs to be clarified, expressed in complete sentences, and the exact sources of the time periods need to be cited, or better still, quoted. The rationale for giving them as an explanation of the timing of the Rapture also needs to be provided, and in such a way that the general reader will be able to understand it.

My guess is that an adequate explanation would be quite lengthy, so my suggestion would be to put this info in the more specialized article on the Rapture rather than here. There's a link to it in the "Midtribulation Rapture" section, so that people who want more detail on that specific topic just have to click on the link. The "Christian Eschatology" article is intended to provide a broad overview rather than a detailed discussion of the finer points, which are too numerous (and too controversial) to include under such a broad heading.--gdm (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Tribulation edit

I temporarily moved the following passage from the section entitled "The great tribulation" because as it stands, it comes across as a little vague and speculative:

...whole cities burned exactly as portrayed in Ezekiel. Included in this list, front and center, are the experiences of the United States of America, including stark mentions of "mountains of fire thrown into the sea burning with fire," accurate references to incoming ICBM's, and even the king of them all - Apollyonus - perhaps a clear reference to the Apollo mission itself.

The points raised are good ones and may well be supportable, but exact quotes need to be provided ("portrayed in Ezekiel" isn't specific enough), as well as a clear explanation (very specific) of why these things may be a fulfillment of the predictions mentioned. For example, many people will find it hard to see a parallel between the Apollo space program and the Apollyon of Revelation, beyond the similarity in the name.

Perhaps the author is attempting to go into more detail here than is appropriate for this broad heading, which only seeks to give a general overview of the subject. This information is probably better suited to the Tribulation article, which has a link in the section. (Please see also the comments on "Midtrib Rapture edit" above.) --gdm (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing font, or bad text?

For me, the first sentence reads:

The word "eschatology" (pronounced "eskatology") is derived from two Greek words meaning "last" and "study" (?s?at??, last; and ????a, lit. discourse).

Am I missing a font, or are those actually question marks? GManNickG (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It was added by User:Willfults, who changed a lot of material. I've added back the Greek words, but actually I think the whole lot should be reverted. StAnselm (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. GManNickG (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should revert the changes. User:Willfults been around in some of the Christianity articles making changes. This is the second article that I am watching that he seems to make modifications in POV for the Seventh Day Adventists. He removed this from his talk page, but they are still archived, previous warnings for removing material in various articles, a warning for edit warring and a subsequent block. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willfults&oldid=387901233 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willfults&oldid=390597890. Efiiamagus (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

This article, impressively detailed though it may be, does not appear to be entirely neutral - many descriptions of beliefs appear to be described as facts. Instead of 'Some christians believe that during the thousand years between the first and the second resurrection the judgment of the wicked will take place we have 'During the thousand years between the first and the second resurrection the judgment of the wicked takes place' represented as if it is a fact. If it is being presented as one, it has to be cited, and some of the latter parts of the article could do with some editing. In the section under Last Day Counterfeit and The Great Tribulation, for example, interpretations of Matthew and Daniel which are not held by many Christians are presented, again, as fact. The article would probable be improved with a couple more sections beginning 'People who subscibe to this belief believe X will happen (cite note to articles or books stating this belief)' rather than simply 'X will happen'. In the article itself (as opposed to the discussion page) we could probably live without sentences including 'as we saw above' - 'as noted above' is more academic. Any suggestions? Saxotelephone (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Saxotelephone

Destruction of Article

At this point, the former article -- which was neutral, thorough, and well-written -- has pretty much been deleted entirely. First, Willfults overwrote most of it, then Taiwan Boi came along and deleted most of his work when he saw how biased it was. I think he probably deleted some of the original stuff that still remained as well. I tried to restore everything to how it was before Willfults came along, but the system won't let me because of conflicting edits. That basically means that most of the article is now lost and will have to be rewritten from scratch. This kind of thing is the drawback of Wiki, and it leads many good writers and editors to just throw up their hands and walk away. --Kicheko (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I preserved everything I deleted, and I intended to post it here for review. But first I just had work, eat, get home, and do other things which involve reality. I do apologize for having real life obligations.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, Willfults destroyed the article before you came along. I do wish, however, that people would work to improve the existing content rather than taking the sledgehammer approach of just deleting everyone else's hard work. In my experience, people who do so rarely have anything constructive to add to an article, they just want to criticize and delete the work of others. --Kicheko (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't destroy anything. I have preserved it all. It could be restored completely in 30 seconds if necessary. All the work of the previous editors has been retained.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)