Please excuse me if I bristle a little here. Why are preterist perspectives labeled as dogmas? Enarchay, you made some very dogmatic statements about the resurrection. That fine, but let us all admit we have strong opinions on things. I believe that progress is made through the sharing of those ideas and opinions (iron sharpening iron).

The article I wrote on the narrative of Revelation was not some dogma I read in a book. It was my own; I have never seen it put quite the way I did in that article (maybe I need to read more ;- ). As to hermeneutics, the single most important hermeneutic principle in interpreting Revelation is to fully look at (or unpack as Andrew might say) the numerous OT allusions in the book. That is how one strips away some of the traditions that hamper us seeing Revelation as its recipients did. I did some of that in my article.

For all the comments that have come up not one person has really interacted with the article. No one has said that is interesting but here is what I perceive the narrative of Revelation to be. The only thing I have seen is implicit criticism of it because it is a preterist perspective.