I think this thread has probably gone as far as it can go under its current heading - that is not to say that there are not many interesting connections forming to other areas but they should really be probably the subject of new threads, adieu.

Dear kevin and Rhian
there is always the possibility that Revelation is 'both'

It has to have some contemporary relevance, as it is written to real churches about their real conditions.
The internal evidence indicates this but then suggests it is also about 'what is to come' and I don't think the whole thing can be squeezed into a 'contemporary theological/political' mould, especially the final chapters about new heaven and new earth, armagedon etc.

Some good commentaries of various escchatological positions exist.
I don't think any will completely answer all our nagging questions.
But then..sometimes we nag too much :)

Higher criticism is useful to the extent that it shows good scholarly research which includes many references to linguistic, historical and archeological material, but it is also often telling more about the presuppositions of the critics than about the text itself.
Some of the 'mammoth iconic' critics I've seen don't take long to deconstruct. One such is Rudolph Bultmaan, and if I recall correctly, he re-interpreted the resurrection in terms of 'The faith community' rather than history on the basis of "Christ could not have risen from the dead, because people don't rise from the dead today, and science teaches that this is impossible" something along those lines.

Some of my favorites in the Neo Orthodox so called camp are Oscar Cullman, (Christ and Time) Joachim Jeremias (The Eucharistic words of Jesus) and others.

Some of the critics of Genesis are simply 'silly' to me. I'm not a scholar but I do know when I see a hypothesis unsuitably connected to the material is seeks to represent. "The 2 creation accounts" is one such example.

Rhian - Hi and thanks for the correction of my misunderstanding in that 'Messianic' instance.

My concern in the original post was for children who by and large are the unwitting victims of every conflict humankind dished out since time immemorial.

Jesus no doubt existed as a person, and as a lapsed atheist even I acknowledge the facts - historical and other. Most certainly his word, his teachings, his memory, and the New Testament affect those with faith. But have we truly been handed down the 'verbatim word' of "god" or just Chinese whispers along the way?

I often give an example of sorts to illustrate 'religion'. It is a room filled with people - the "nations of the Earth". In this room all people sit around a huge table over which is hung a light. That light is viewed by each and every person in a different perspective from where they sit. We then 'name' the light after our respective "god or god(s)"

Why am I less a person because my beliefs of that 'light' have a different concept whether it be Jehovah's, Budhha's, Mohammed's, Jesus's, Shiva's or whatever?

I become less a person when I start to affect lives in a negative way - which is what we see with the 'othering' being fostered amongst societies world wide today. The questions are to the puppeteers - why do it?

Vive la differences, celebrate but don't dictate.

I am concerned in equal amounts by far right pentecostal and fundy 'christians' - Hillsong/Assembly of God/Potters House, as I am by Wahhabi Islamists. I have endeavoured over my last 20 + years of life, to be tolerant of most religious zealots even to the point of attending their meetings, investigating their beleifs, sharing 'communion' and breaking bread with folk of many religious persuasions.

Some were downright scary, but for the most I feel there is comfort given for those folk too weak to have a strength of conviction within, and of themselves.

For others religion is nothing more than a convenient 'crutch'. That in itself is even more scary.

Dear Albie
I share your concern over some of the 'right wing pente' types as you listed. But for different reasons. I hope you look closely enough at them to realize that Hillsong is not having 'terror training camps, explosives orientation, weapons familiarization'... rather they have Bible study, prayer and fellowship :) in contrast to the Wahabists.

My concern about Hillsong or any Pente group which seems too much on the "Prosperity gospel" is simply that people will gain a wrong impresion of Jesus, and when they find out its wrong, may despair and abandon their faith.

Regarding the 'Word of God' and the Bible. You would be possibly quite suprised at the level of ancient middle east memory. Take the Hadith of Mohamed for example. Its quite a testimony to how a piece of information can be separately transmitted through 2 chains of people and end up still very similiar.

But the Words of Jesus had much better attestation, as the gospels and records of his words were in print within the lifetime of the Apostles. Jesus also spoke in a form easy to remember "Parables".

"The kingdom is like a grain of mustard seed"....etc.. how many times does one need to hear that and be able to remember ?

"The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep, and one became lost..." easssssy :)

I can still remember just about word for word, the report given to me of Islamic persecution in Sabah Malaysia from the deacons at the village who experienced it. That was around 1978 and now its 2006, nearly 30 yrs on.

Boaz D, I am in constant awe of anyone who can remember or recite verbatim, long passages of text. Mostly I have trouble remembering the weekly shopping list.

Oral traditions of many cultures are, quite literally (excusing unintended pun there) their only recorded histories. Our own Aboriginal Nations go back many, many more aeons past even the most ancient scrolls from which we take the common sytems of beleifs (religions) extant. To have a 'Dream Time' story translated is a touching and wonderful thing when the storyteller is at one with the land around them. Truly living history revealed.

I have copies of most popular religious texts by my side. I would beg to differ that Islam is actually any more or less violent than Christianity over the ages. Both have bloody accounts of, and within their histories. Ha'armag-Eddon as you know, was a most brutal scene of carnage. Forensic archaeology has shown that to be.

But again I digress, to state simply that: no one religion should be seen by its followers as 'better' than his neighbour's and leave it at that my friend.

Certainly the Wahhabist's are not predisposed to any friendly dialogue when converting Infidels. Whether dropped by B52's or strapped to a 13 yr old girl, C4 and Semtex are similarly indiscriminate in their 'conversion' of human flesh.

Our technologies in warfare have made us smug and complacent. The might of god and the might of superior firepower will not always win the battle as we saw in Vietnam, and now see revisited in Iraq/Afghanistan. A most poignant picture of recent times is the old soldiers from both sides in the Battle of Long Tan, seen shaking hands and enjoying a friendly beer.

A Holy War, be it 'Crusade' or 'Jihaad' may only change the tide for several generations in the wake of its victory. What then - we repeat the same formulae ad infinitum into the mists of time.

Will we ever learn?

Albie
I largely agree - most faiths have something unique and special to say about God, and none has a monopoly on truth, or a complete and perfect understanding of the divine and the spiritual. I don’t think this means we should sink completely into pomo relativism, though, in which all faiths are seen as equal and none as the right to criticise another. A vigorous but respectful debate would surely be to all our benefit, if we could only manage it.