___________________Iacchus said:... the Great Flood at the end of the Church of Adam,
... the fall of the Tower of Babel at the end of the Church of Noah,
... and the destruction of the Israelite nation at the end of the Israelite Church.
So it would seem that the "end of times" has more to do with the "end of an era" than anything else.
So what of the Christian Church? the Last Judgment... has already been performed, and the "Christian Era" has now come to a close which, was supposed to occur in year 1757.
... All of which has been thoroughly detailed through the works of Emanuel Swedenborg, the notable Swedish scientist, theologian - and, mystic.
Since we're talking about evidence, just a couple of small corrections to the above.
First, there was no Great Flood.
Second, there never was a man named Adam. Adam is a fictional creation of the myths in Genesis, and perhaps drawing on earlier myths, but there never was a time in human history when there was a single man named Adam.
There never was a Tower of Babel. That's a metaphor for the way different languages and customs keep people from working together.
Finally, all of this illustrates what I've been talking about: how do you tell a con game from a legitimate statement?
What is your test?
If the author tries to back up his claims by referring to mythical events, then... OK, there was a Star Trek: The Next Generation, where Commander Ryker meets a woman out of his past. Only she wasn't a real woman, she was an illusion he created in the holodeck as his ideal woman. So, when someone presented her as real, Ryker knew it was a con, an illusion.
Any "authority" - this Swedenborg you mentioned - IF a theologian's work or theory is based on a Church ending with the Great Flood, then I would have no problem saying it's a con game. Wrong False.
The same way... what I'm trying to show is, how do rational people react to a religion that seeks to control evil spirits by having a man sleep with widows? Or an exorcist who commands the evil spirits to go into a herd of swine and commit suicide?
We are not opposed to Christianity because we are afraid of it, or the consequences of ignoring it. We think it's silly because it's based on a man's authority to command "unclean spirits" - the same reaction that, hopefully, many of you had to my story about traditional or animist religions in Gangre, Kenya.
(PS - On the off chance that you were using Swedenborg as a way of making a point, I apologize for being dense. Couldn't tell whether you were serious about this drivel or not.)