ECT NT Eschatology does not mix 1st century Israel and distant future world

[Interplanner]

NT eschatology is either about the 1st century situation in Judea OR about a distant future final day of judgement.

At first, the two parts were not separated at all. In Luke (chronicling and compiling for Paul) ch 21 allows no separation. Everything I find in Paul makes it sound quite soon (ex., I Cor 7). But Mk 13's parable of the attentive servants, and Mt24B's "only the Father knows" and 2 Peter 3's explanation and defense of a delay before the final judgement all allow a separation.

Church historian Lattourrette records that accounting for the delay between Mt24A and B was the first thing the remaining apostles had to sort out, Vol 1, p43. It became as clear as historic fact that Christ meant a delay would take place between the destruction of Israel in 70AD and the 2nd coming. It was about 75 years later when the idea occurred to Irenaeus that there might be another round of events in Israel in that future that replicated what had happened back in the 6th decade. It's not a strong case, but I see why he did. Since then, people have either anchored things in the past or the future instead of letting the delay be a factor when it was.

There is nothing but confusion if the two kinds of events are mixed. God does not cause confusion.

 

[Danoh]

You sure heavily rely upon distinctions between things, lol

Our difference?

Yours are books based - you're more likely to quote them then Scripture - because you are obviously way better versed in your books than in "the Word of Truth."

You think you are "thinking Biblically."

But you well know yours is the thought heavily influenced by other's labors.

And like a modern day Pharisee; to point this out you, only offends you.

 

[Interplanner]

You're great at villifying and have no specifics either in what I'm saying or the phantom books you have trouble with. Name names and verses or shut up.

 

[Danoh]

You're great at villifying and have no specifics either in what I'm saying or the phantom books you have trouble with. Name names and verses or shut up.

That's because I am pointing out the Distinction Principle itself.

In this, yours is the obviously high IQ that is nevertheless, ever trumped by the higher principle that is looking at all things from Systems Theory.

For, when I first read something like the following - in a book - I right off recognized it as a description of what had been my approach long before ever even reading its description - in a book:

"Systems theory: the interdisciplinary study of systems in general, with the goal of elucidating principles that can be applied to all types of systems at all nesting levels in all fields of research."

That right there is why I so differ with you.

Yours appears to be that but is actually the lens that is books about a thing.

What specific books does not matter - their symptom is rampant within your every word.

You take offence to that... when you could allow yourself to be challenged by it; that you might break free of said crutch and begin to actually see the passages before your eyes for what they actually assert.

Not that you even know what I am talking about due to your overreliance on IQ [volume of information gathered quotient].

No thanks, I'll stick to arriving at things from getting in there and engaging the text of Scripture itself.

1 Corinthians 2:

11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

And that is my point - that is what I am harping on.

But your books based need to look a thing up in a book for what so and so is talking about is your crutch.

My throwing rocks at the windows of your "Alexandrian" library is in hopes of getting your attention to that fact that your books based wisdom will be burned up even as by fire.

There is something higher than all that. And it is this - the "library" that was Antioch, and from which the Word of God alone sounded throughout that world that then was.

That something higher is - Get in Scripture, and stay in Scripture.

It is able to inform one in its own "systems theory" - in its own interdisciplinary study of systems in general, with the goal of elucidating principles that can be applied to all types of systems at all nesting levels in all fields of research.

It asserts as much.

Romans 1's:

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

2 Timothy 3's:

16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Interplanner]

danoh wrote:
In this, yours is the obviously high IQ that is nevertheless, ever trumped by the higher principle that is looking at all things from Systems Theory.

For, when I first read something like the following - in a book - I right off recognized it as a description of what had been my approach long before ever even reading its description - in a book:

"Systems theory: the interdisciplinary study of systems in general, with the goal of elucidating principles that can be applied to all types of systems at all nesting levels in all fields of research."

reading those books again!

I wonder why the Bible doesn't have this sound--like a book about physics?

 

[Interplanner]

As for the rest, Danoh,
All I've done is reduced Mt24 and parallels and 2 Pet 3 to true and simple statements. I'm not quoting anyone. I've never seen anyone say it this way. No books.

Funny how the only passages you quote have nothing to do with main eschatological statements of the NT, which is the topic.