Talk:Christian eschatological views

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian eschatological views redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Christianity: Theology High‑importance

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance).

Untitled

This article makes almost no sense at all. It reads like abbreviated lecture notes from a graduate level course in Eschatology.

Could we get some complete sentences, maybe even a vague overview of what's being discussed?

Insertions of phrases such as 'biblically inerrant' about particular groups of Christians indicates a measure of bias by the original author.

Biblical Inerrancy refers to a stance on the trustworthiness of the scripture. It is a precise definition within the theological community.

Actually, the article does make sense, at least to me, as a 3rd year seminary student. It seems generally accurate, and the use of the phrase "biblically inerrant" does not necessarilly suggest author bias, as it is how most of those denominations so described would describe themselves.

Well, as a 3rd year seminary student you're probably not the target demographic for the article, as you're already probably quite familiar with the material. I, on the other hand, am not familiar with the material and I just agree that the article is poorly written. I don't have any problem with the content or POV, just the presentation. The first two comments are valid.

I also agree that people holding to the stated theological positions within the article would certainly describe themselves as indicated by the article, and while I would see potential problems with the use of the phrase 'biblically inerrant,' I see no problem with the use of this phrase in this article. Meng.benjamin 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Thank you for pointing out the possibility of bias in this article. Keep up the work hunting down true bias. It is definitely appreciated. Meng.benjamin 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger, etc

I think this is a good article. It's meant to be a reference - the Christian eschatology article is very thorough as it is. I'm going to remove the "cleanup" and "merger" tags; it's pretty well laid-out as-is, and the main article is certainly too large already to merge.

Just my $0.02, David Schroder 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical theological view

The Biblical theological view as exemplified in works such as Graeme Goldsworthy's Gospel and Revelation and believed by groups such as the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. It is similar to the Covenantal system but different in a few key ways, and so I've added an additional section. I'm not a theologian, so my use of language may be inprecise - I'll just write what I've been taught and read. Happy for help. Journeyman 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in dispensational premillenialism the rapture is called "secret" is this the most popular view?

Post-tribulation rapture proponents refer to the pre-tribulation rapture as the "secret rapture." I have never heard the term used by a pre-trib proponent. It should be noted that both these views are premillennial, only differing on the timing of the rapture.

On another note, I think this article should be expanded and merged with Christian eschatology. Kristamaranatha (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prewrath/Midtrib

While prewrath is a comparatively minority viewpoint with respect to premillennial escatology, both prewrath and midtrib both bear mentioning as another perspective. Since there are books on the subject, they wouldn't constitute as original research. Neither fall under pretrib or posttrib, and so I feel it'd be better to add another one.Sugaki (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschatology-oriented edits

A lot of the content of all these eschatology pages was getting duplicated, because each of the views had to be heard on each of the pages. I've moved much of the interpretations to their respective view pages (for example, taken the Futurist view of the Book of Revelation and put it on the Futurism (Christianity) page), in the hopes of minimizing duplication, keeping source pages unimpeded by eschatological disputes, and making it more clear what comprises each of the eschatologies. I've moved some of the comparisons among these views to the Christian eschatology page, so that the core differences can be contrasted in one place. After all that, there really wasn't a need for a separation between Christian eschatology and Christian eschatological views; thus the redirect. Skinrider (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian eschatological views. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete this

It's terrible. Dispensationalism is all wrong. Historic/Post Trib? That's going to confuse people and it ain't right. Supersessionism=covenant theology? No!

Honest question: did a Dallas undergrad write this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.133.136 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]