rhutchin

Like in basketball, live by the three, die by the three.

rhutchin

That sounds right. God owns everything and loans it to us to use and then return back to Him later on. A particular verse for this does not come to mind, but I think a sound argument can be made for it from the Bible.

rhutchin

Because Paul (as well as the other authors of the books that comprise the Bible) claimed to be speaking for God. Paul, among others, provided arguments for accepting his letters as the word of God. So, anyone can read those arguments and accept or reject his claims. Not only do you not have visions, but I suspect you don't go around healing people to validate any claims you might make about being God's spokesman.

DCHindley

My favorite reference book for classic dispensationalist eschatological exposition of the book of Revelation is Understanding Revelation: A Chronology of the Apocalypse (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Gary G. Cohen (Christian Beacon Press: Collingwood, NJ, 1968). The author was an ordained "Bible Presbyterian" minister.

It discusses the six basic approaches to understanding the events described (critical; allegorical; preterit; historical; topical & futuristic). Then it goes into interpretation of the different sections to determine their relative chronology. There are tables, such as Albert Barnes' historical interpretation, the seven year tribulation period, comparison of Daniel's 4th beast and the beast of Revelation, etc. A 77 entry bibliography is included.

It is published in paperback on acid paper, so it is falling apart and the leaves crumbling. In a way it is like an old papyrus manuscript, with naive application of strips of cellophane tape here and there like you sometimes see on photos of well known mss in museums (applied before they knew better).

Fun fun.

DCH (taking my OTHER authorized 15 minute break)

DCHindley

It would have been more of a possibility in the Reagan years. Bush has pretty much kept out of the middle east mess, at least in the "holy land". Iraq, well, that's another matter.

DCH

Ben C Smith

Many might disagree with your assessment that man cannot do anything about global warming (whether for better or for worse), but this does not seem like the right forum to debate that issue.

However, I have to ask: Why is it better to talk about something over which humankind has, in your judgment, no control than to talk about something for which man is directly responsible? I intentionally chose a problem which could noncontroversially be laid at the feet of humankind, a problem consonant with the green goals of the website in question, whose environment page is all to do with recycling and reducing emissions to save the rainforest.

Is this perhaps a bit of the same throwing up of the hands that I said some people associated with some forms of rapture theology?

If it actually discourages inquiry into the problems of our world and their potential solutions, some would indeed call it pernicious.

Here is a test case. Think of that (not very good, IMHO) movie Armageddon with Bruce Willis, in which humankind learns that a gigantic meteor is on course to impact the earth and destroy life as we know it. At this very moment, I suspect there is precious little we could do in such a scenario (extreme movie plotlines notwithstanding). However, the very idea that a meteor could do great damage to humankind presses the issue at hand:

1. Do we research possible ways of staving off disaster (guided space missiles, for example)?
2. Or do we throw up our hands and assert that only God can and will ever be able to prevent such a catastrophe, and that his plans as outlined in the venerable book of John the Revelator guarantee our collective safety from mass extinction until such time as the rapture should whisk the lucky few away from this doomed planet (at which time God is invited to bring it on)?

The anonymous individuals whom I said suspect that rapture theology encourages complacency might very well regard option 2 as irresponsible. As the Muslims are reputed to say: Trust Allah, but tie your camel anyway.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Leviticus 25.23 comes to mind:

The land, moreover, shall not be sold permanently, for the land is mine; for you are but aliens and sojourners with me.

Ben.

Deus Ex

So, if someone claims to speak for God that means that they actually are?


Such as?

Rejected for lack of evidence.

I sure don't. I have no evidence that Paul ever healed anyone, either.

Didymus

Grammar?

That's probably because most of the children don't have the benefit of an RC education.

Ddms

rhutchin

With unlimited resources, you can do anything you want. In such situations, you might argue against throwing up the hands and doing nothing. With limited resources, you need to prioritize and I would place this project at the bottom of the any list of projects for funding regardless of one's views of the Bible and the rapture.