Talk:Realized eschatology
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
POV
editThe following passage strikes me as showing a very strong POV.
- This view is attractive to many people, since it reverses the notion that Jesus' second coming is an ominous event, something hardly in keeping with the overall theme of Jesus and his teachings in the canonical gospels.
The most glaring POV is that the second coming is "ominous". Otherwise, I object to this idea that the gospels have a straight-forward interpretation. AdamRetchless 18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. I've rephrased the sentence to remove the POV. The article is better for it. --Loremaster 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the statement concerning "destruction" shows a HUGE bias against those who hold to a literal second coming of Christ. The eschatalogical message is a matter of hope, not destruction, that is a misinterpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.64.128 (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
transhistorisicity
edit" Eschatology is therefore not the end of the world but its rebirth instituted by Jesus and continued by his disciples, a historical (rather than transhistorical) phenomenon"
-- Realized Eschatology is most certainly transhistorical, rather than historical, as the article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.30.65 (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't tell, from reading the wiki article on transhistoricity, whether realised eschatology is best described as historical or transhistorical. It seemed to me historical in the sense that we can say that it has already happened and is already happening and is not the end of history as we ordinarily understand the term 'history'. It seemed to me transhistorical in the sense that it denies that the second coming of Christ needs to be understood as a particular dateable event in world 'history' (e.g. one that will happen at a particular point in the future). Unless someone has a clearer sense of what 'transhistoricity' means than can be gleaned from Wikipedia I propose we delete the mention of transhistoricity as its confusing.