Virtually all Christians today would not argue that First Coming prophecy was fulfilled steadily as the era prior to the Cross unfolded. Take Daniel's 69 weeks, as weeks of days as years, as an example of part of that period. Or Daniel's prophecied successive kingdom "beasts" that reigned over a period of hundreds of years.
Then, throughout most of the Christian era Christians had every reason to, and indeed many did, understand that Second Coming prophecy would be fulfilled steadily as the Christian era unfolded.
But later in the Christian era, and particularly approaching the 20th century, Protestant eschatology branched off into two major eschatological camps.
Partial preterists, that believe that the prophesied events in the books of Revelation and Daniel, leading up to the day of Jesus return, had virtually all been fulfilled prior to and including the 70 AD Roman sacking of Jerusalem.
The other popular Protestant eschatology is that of futurist/dispensationalist doctrine that holds that virtually all of the end-time events prophesied in Daniel, and Revelation (after chapter 3), that are to occur prior to the day Jesus returns, are to take place during some brief (usually 7 years or less) period that is yet in our future.
These two views of eschatology are divided - absolutely - by a gulf of over 1900 years.
As unbelievable as it may seem, it necessarily follows then, that each of these camps must believe the other camp to be virtually 100% wrong in regard to their eschatology.
It then follows that at least one - or both - would necessarily be correct in their estimation of the other.
But can we imagine that either camp, even for a moment, would be able to entertain the notion of the possibility that it could be their own eschatology that was virtually 100% wrong?
Yet, at least one, must necessarily be, virtually, 100% wrong. Isn't that peculiar?
Even as we were given the warnings about unsound doctrine in the second and third chapters chapters of Revelation, we can understand that, just 70 years after the cross, unsound doctrine had already infiltrated the church. We are also given passages like in the gospels where Jesus indicates that through tradition it is possible to make the Word of God of no effect.
Then, throughout most of the Christian era Christians had every reason to, and indeed many did, understand that Second Coming prophecy would be fulfilled steadily as the Christian era unfolded.
But later in the Christian era, and particularly approaching the 20th century, Protestant eschatology branched off into two major eschatological camps.
Partial preterists, that believe that the prophesied events in the books of Revelation and Daniel, leading up to the day of Jesus return, had virtually all been fulfilled prior to and including the 70 AD Roman sacking of Jerusalem.
The other popular Protestant eschatology is that of futurist/dispensationalist doctrine that holds that virtually all of the end-time events prophesied in Daniel, and Revelation (after chapter 3), that are to occur prior to the day Jesus returns, are to take place during some brief (usually 7 years or less) period that is yet in our future.
These two views of eschatology are divided - absolutely - by a gulf of over 1900 years.
As unbelievable as it may seem, it necessarily follows then, that each of these camps must believe the other camp to be virtually 100% wrong in regard to their eschatology.
It then follows that at least one - or both - would necessarily be correct in their estimation of the other.
But can we imagine that either camp, even for a moment, would be able to entertain the notion of the possibility that it could be their own eschatology that was virtually 100% wrong?
Yet, at least one, must necessarily be, virtually, 100% wrong. Isn't that peculiar?
Even as we were given the warnings about unsound doctrine in the second and third chapters chapters of Revelation, we can understand that, just 70 years after the cross, unsound doctrine had already infiltrated the church. We are also given passages like in the gospels where Jesus indicates that through tradition it is possible to make the Word of God of no effect.
