The History of Eschatology

[Barry]

Hi everyone. Planet Preterist was kind enough to post one of my articles. :)
http://planetpreterist.com/news-2883.html

It has my usual typing errors LOL! :eek:
Thought I would open it for discussion here at Talk-Grace.
Barry

[Amie]

This brings to mind what Christy just posted (post #23) under "first/second death". She put it so beautifully that I'm still affected by it and am not sure that I could be any clearer (http://talk-grace.com/showthread.php?p=2133#post2133)

Two things that are sitting with me right now that you said were:


They were never told to hold fast beyond the end

This really brings home the most intense implications of fulfillment -- there is a time of completion.


An age of responsibility not accountability.

This touches upon what humanity learns to do with liberty. Sometimes the lessons are hard ones, but ultimately and eventually we get it.


Resurrection however is archaeologically dependent.

Would you mind elaborating on this one?

I find that folks over there comment little, if at all, about things that they can't argue over, lol.

Amie

[Paige]

The life of the new age where there is no eschatology and no consummation of the age.

IMO, this is one of the hardest things for people to accept. So much so, that they have made the "afterlife" the new eschatology and the new consummation.


That consummation not only brings in a new age but it establishes that new age. A new age without eschatology.

I just can't for the life of me figure out why so many want to insist that people born into the new age are "born dead". We may as well worship the first Adam then, as he has more power than the second one under this scenario.

I enjoyed your article and I'm glad you started this thread for discussion, Barry.

Paige

[Barry]

"Resurrection however is archaeologically dependent"

Typing error!!! LOL LOL.
"Resurrection however is eschatologically dependent"

It very much appears the eschatology and accountability are tied together.
Thanks Amie.

[Amie]

Dangit!! You had addressed that already! I need my processer looked at!

:biglaugha: :biglaugha:

Amie

[Barry]

Hi Page,
"I just can't for the life of me figure out why so many want to insist that people born into the new age are "born dead". We may as well worship the first Adam then, as he has more power than the second one under this scenario."

I wonder Page, since some claim that the sin nature is carried down by the male if we couldn't produce a pure race of Amazonians by cloning the women?
And you expected something theological!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Barry

[Paige]

Score one for cloning, lol! :biglaugha: :biglaugha: :biglaugha:

Paige

[Barry]

Romans 8:11
Now this is a fascinating verse from the angle of covenantal end-times (eschatology) studies.
I know that I have bought it up before but would like to take a closer look at this verse in view of the above article (link at P.P.).

Those who are grounded in the concept of covenant eschatology usually do not "see" a "body" resurrection in the sense of bodies coming out of the ground and materialising and such as was the even the view of Josephus (a first century Jewish historian).
As such then this verse represents some particularities. We are not however seeing a mortal body becoming immortal because (eternal) life is given to it.

Rather IMHO we are seeing the quality of (God's immortality) life, characterize the still mortal body. The mortal body of the first fruit christian would still die when we define death as physical post mortem.
However, because the characteristic of God's immortality was given to that mortal body, the historical impact of the mortal body would be eternal (permanent).

My view at this time is that this life is a temporal existence. I do not see this temporal existence as the summation of life and consciousness.
However I do not see resurrection as a departure from this temporal framework.
IMHO resurrection was the raising of this life and the justification of this life in this temporal framework.

The dichotomy of scripture is one of human possibility vs. God possibility (life and immortality).

Our history was such in human possibility and could not progress until the end of the age. Now the characteristic of "life" is bestowed upon ongoing history. This is the "reward" of the first fruits. The new age is in a sense their inheritance.

Of of these things IMHO imply another temporal existence and consciousness that is not dealt with in scripture but IMHO is touched upon and implied.

In other words, the words of Jesus "is the God of the living and not the dead" speaks first and foremost to the eschatological matters at hand which is justification of the temporal life of Moses and others as that life was given vindification even if not while he was still alive. But, that truth implies more than its direct usage and intent.
The truth of eschatology implies a larger framework of consciousness wherein nothing is ever lost in the sovereignty of God in the meaning of consciousness which cannot be detached from the essence of love.

The framework of the Bible is about eschatology and justification of this temporal life. But this is IMO framed in a larger implication of "God".
Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

What are your thoughts on the body being corporate? How many corporate bodies were there? The body of Moses, the body of Christ, the gentile body (?)...

Amie

[Barry]

Barry,

What are your thoughts on the body being corporate? How many corporate bodies were there? The body of Moses, the body of Christ, the gentile body (?)...

Amie

IMO there was the body of Adam (likened unto the tree of K of G and E) which became headed up in the body of Moses (law). This was a natural body. As brute beasts bred to be slaughtered.
Now there is no natural body in post transformation.

IMO our corporate state or status is indicative of the truth of consciousness. We are individuals but we are one. We are Islands all joined together underwater.
I have found no way of accounting for love without unity and diversity. Diversity is essential for love. Unity is essential for love. (I am me, but I am more, you are you but you are more, what I do to you I have done to myself, what I do for you I have done for myself [the Christ of unity and diversity])
This might not be much of an answer sis. LOL.
[I'm sure everyone knows, just expressing my thoughts out loud here :biglaugha: ]
Barry

[christyG]

Hi, All, been away a while and trying to catch-up.:)
(Actually, I've been feeling quite restless and have been soaking in as much information as possible in as many places as I can find it... not enough time for everything.)

Just wanted to say, Barry, that I liked this statement....

We are Islands all joined together underwater.
I have found no way of accounting for love without unity and diversity. Diversity is essential for love. Unity is essential for love. (I am me, but I am more, you are you but you are more, what I do to you I have done to myself, what I do for you I have done for myself [the Christ of unity and diversity])


Great knowledge in that statement:clap2: :clap2:

Christy