It seems from the above that I have not got my point across. Apocalyptic in the bible is not about the end of the material world, the writers did not understand nature as a separate category. It was not until out fascination with the natural world that began in the 16th C that millenarianism, that the idea of the end of the world became the prevailing view. However, a reading of the texts reveals that the day of the Lord, or the advent of the kingdom of God in the New Testament was a socio-political reality. Because nature was not understood as a separate realm, nature too was included as in Romans 8.

Apocalyptic in the NT comes from the understanding that something happened when Christ was crucified that changed everything. It began with understanding of the individual and spread to the rest of society so that a new creation was born. The power of the event of the cross is similar to the power of any other historical event except for degree. Are we not formed by our history? The fact that my writing on apocalyptic is misinterpreted as a prediction about nature just reveals how natural science has taken over our thinking. We find that we are not able to think theologically because theology does not use the methods of natural science. This produces a poverty of thought that is reduced to mechanism

"Apocalyptic in the NT comes from the understanding that something happened when Christ was crucified that changed everything"

What happened was that a martyr was created, that's all. A man preached, he was persecuted he died. He had some good ideas, so did Buddha, Mohammed, Einstein, Plato - to name a few.

Sells you must have known that your comments would be deliberately misconstrued as the physical annihilation? An opportunity to cast aspersions on this forum is never rejected. I just wonder what the point of your article is?

Are you saying that a cataclysmic social event began at the death of Christ? Or are you saying there will be one soon?

Scout.
Both the judgment and hence the salvation of the world has already occurred with the event of the murder of Jesus. Matthew is right when he has signs of the end time appear immediately after the death on the cross (Matt. 27:45ff) Thus the end of a world, the world of human strife that is caused by our flight from the truth, has had notice that it may no longer hold sway. It is now under condemnation. Its continued existence in the world that we read about in the newspapers every day is only now an existence in the face of its already defeated condition. This is why eschatology is the centre of biblical texts, it describes an event that ferments in the history of the world. The Christian hope is that that ferment will never be extinguished. To understand this we must risk engagement with theology and risk that we might be pierced to the heart. It is only then that we find we are unable to talk about theology from a distance, we will become engaged and the consequences of that are fearful. That is why people lump Jesus in with all the others, to establish a cold and objective distance. Certainly that will keep us safe, but then, there is nothing safer than a corpse, we can expect nothing from it except that it will stink more.

Sells,

Though I usually consider your articles 'for catholics only' type of writings but thought I share an opinion on this one.

During my early studies of the Arabaham religions, they seen to have the 'end of day' and the resurrection all over since the early stories of Adam and Eve.

Taking science and stats into consideration, one cannot expect the earth to be around with 20 billion inhabitants warming up to 85 degrees temperature, rising desertation, increasing salt levels in the air and water, furthering lunar distance affecting gravity, moving under water earth plates causing increasing quakes, etc...its another 'logical' interpretation.

Hate to sound so realistic but I think you went a little too far this time:-)

SCOUT

It might be neccessary to clarify where Sells is coming from. (though coming from 'me' you might immediately think this is an 'attack' :)

Sells appears to hold that either

a)Christ did not rise literally from death
or
b) Even if he did, or not, it "doesn't matter" in terms of the 'faith lessons' we draw from the event.

Sells can correct me here, I welcome that.

I take a different position, 1Corinthians 15

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]:

-that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
-that he was buried,
-that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, -and that he appeared to

-Peter,
-and then to the Twelve.
-After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
-Then he appeared to James,
-then to all the apostles,
-and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

APOCALYPSE / END
Mark13
26"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Clearly, the above did not happen in the lifetime of the early apostles. (their generation) So, some say
"Jesus was wrong" or..
"He was sincere, but misguided"

The simple solution would be to 're-arrange' the Bible to fit history but the Church did not do that.

Without going into a lengthy coverage of the 'Theories of last days', let me just conclude with this-
Pauls comment in his Corinthian letter:

"2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."

...Is meaningless without a 'real' literal resurrection to which he is testifying to. Following from this, 'are we ready' for when Christ does return ?

Sells, BD... er, yeah thanks. And the point of this article is?