peter wilkinson replied to Andrew I don’t understand your first comment. In one sense, it’s another argument for cosmic renewal, when the memory of former times will be erased. In a slightly more likely sense, it’s a forceful way of...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 19:26)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson Why does Isaiah connect the new heavens and earth with forgetfulness?
What Isaiah describes is the renewal of Zion among the nations, where sin persists and people still die? How is that a “literal...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 16:03)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew In this case, new heavens and new earth are in a different category from Isaiah 51:3, though it’s part of the same story. 51:3 describes earthly renewal. 65:17 extends to the cosmos. This literal...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 09:14)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson As I said before, you need to give reasons for your sweeping assertions.When Isaiah 60-66 is clearly a story about Israel’s status and place among the nations, established as a result of warfare,...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 08:45)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew Isaiah is echoing Genesis 1:1 - new heavens and new earth. As far as his contemporaries were concerned, this was drawing in a literal description of the cosmos. There’s no reason to think that Isaiah...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 07:27)
Jerel Kratt replied to Andrew Andrew,
Isaiah was comparing two peoples: one who were destined to the sword and a curse, and another called by a new name. These new people with a new name were who/what was being created: a new...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 00:53)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson Why far-fetched? You need to give reasons for your sweeping assertions. Why shouldn’t a literal idea in the Old Testament be used figuratively in the New Testament, or vice versa? Why shouldn’t we...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 23:42)
Andrew replied to Jerel Kratt It was the Jerusalem above that Isaiah clearly had in mind in this new creation.But nothing in Isaiah 60-66 suggests that he was thinking of a Jerusalem above. That makes nonsense of the passage. His...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 23:32)
Jerel Kratt replied to Andrew I find it rather startling to claim that Isa. 65 wasn’t fulfilled in the first century because Jerusalem on earth never became a “glorious beacon.” That is precisely the point of the text. Jerusalem...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 20:39)
Jerel Kratt replied to Andrew Andrew,
I think one can still hold to the 1000 years beginning at AD70, and have the new heavens and earth arrive at the same time. Duncan McKenzie made this argument in The Antichrist and the Second...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 20:21)
peter wilkinson So the language of Isaiah 65:17 was figurative, not literal? Was the language of Revelation 21:1 also figurative and not literal? Such a direct echo makes a contrasting usage far fetched, to say the...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 19:06)
Andrew replied to Doug Wilkinson I would be more inclined to say that the prophecies of Isaiah 60-65 were not fulfilled, even in the first century AD. The Jerusalem on earth remained in bondage and was eventually destroyed; it never...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 18:38)
Andrew replied to Jerel Kratt I see the appeal of the argument, but I still think that i) John’s thousand year period is intended to create an enormous symbolic distance between the transformative eschatological events that...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 18:04)
Doug Wilkinson It sounds like you are stipulating to Isa. 65-66 being fulfilled in the establishment of the kingdom in The first century. If so, and assuming that the original audience of the NT is using OT...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 16:19)
Jerel Kratt “The “new creation” language is figurative. History is not literally transcended, but a dramatically different and enduring social-political situation is predicted.“
And seeing how Isa 60-66 is the...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 16:04)
Jerel Kratt Andrew,
Before getting into all your arguments, we need to start with one primary thing. I never said the new Jerusalem was “in heaven.” “From above,” “heavenly,” yes. But not in heaven. My actual...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 17:21)
davo replied to Andrew Hi Andrew…
Why should we think that creation = Israel in Romans 8:19-23?
As I understand it… anyone in Christ was a new creation, aka ‘the new creation’ constituting the new “Israel of God” (Gal 6:...(Sat, 18/11/2017 - 05:49)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew I agree with your comment about Paul, but actually, you are using a modern grammatical historical grid to understand Paul and the OT scriptures (slightly modified as critical historical narrative),...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 17:04)
Andrew replied to peter wilkinson If we read Paul through a theological grid, we will conclude that he has misread or reinterpreted the Old Testament. If we read Paul, the first century Pharisee, through the Jewish scriptures, we...(Fri, 17/11/2017 - 09:00)
peter wilkinson The overarching issue I have with your argument is that it does not take sufficient account of how much was changed through the coming of Jesus. For Paul, it meant a complete rereading of the OT, as...(Thu, 16/11/2017 - 17:37)
Andrew replied to Peter Thanks, Peter. It’s a good question. I’ll see if I can get back to it next week.
(Thu, 16/11/2017 - 17:34)
Andrew replied to davo Hi Davo.
There’s no reason I can see why we should collapse all New Testament eschatology into a single paradigm—whether the traditional one of Jesus’ second coming at the end of the world or the...(Thu, 16/11/2017 - 17:33)
davo My basic argument is that the New Testament is only marginally interested in new creation or cosmic transformation or the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it. …
Either way, we unwittingly substitute our...(Thu, 16/11/2017 - 10:26)
Peter I think you’re right that the kingdom was not synonymous with a literal end of the world, BUT I think there was an expectation that Jesus would return in the first century at which point the dead in...(Wed, 15/11/2017 - 01:57)
Andrew replied to David These posts will give you some idea of my views on Preterism:Just to be clear, I am neither a Preterist nor a UnitarianWhy I don’t like being labelled a “preterist”Narrative-realism, Preterism, and...(Mon, 13/11/2017 - 22:07)
David Have you looked into partial and full preterism yet?(Mon, 13/11/2017 - 12:43)
Doane Ive always wondered why Luke isn’t brought into this conversation as well. Luke is the same speech but clearly says Jerusalem. But what is interesting to me is Luke has a different order of events....(Wed, 08/11/2017 - 15:24)
Peter As I read through this post, I go back and forth–sometimes agreeing with Allison and sometimes agreeing with you.
I am inclined to think Jesus expected to literally return on the clouds and begin...(Tue, 07/11/2017 - 19:09)
Andrew replied to Richard Worden Wilson It’s quite possible that I have missed the point. Still, what mystified me was not Hurtado’s argument in itself, as far as it goes. I agree that “Son of Man” was not a title and was not used by Jesus...(Tue, 07/11/2017 - 10:18)
peter wilkinson replied to Andrew Thanks for the clarification. I had not put together your two views of ‘the son of man’, though put like this, it’s reasonably clear that you have more or less consistently held both.
For what it’s...(Tue, 07/11/2017 - 09:40)