Remember when Mike Huckabee’s Christmas ad supposedly had a cross in it, thanks to the intersection of some book shelves?  Remember the outrage and mindless media chatter that resulted?  Well where is the outrage and chatter over the new Obama …

Thanks for the link to the Israel Insider. There is a lot to research in the article

You are unqualified to exegete Scripture, apac.

Akzed on May 16, 2008 at 4:23 PM

LOL. I have a strong feeling you would have said the same thing to the Matthew, Peter, Luke, and Mark.

Akzed on May 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM

You are writing from the amillenialist point of view, okay, why don’t you just say it. You believe prophecy is not to be taken literally. You believe the dangerous doctrine that the Christian Church is the “new” Israel. You think Israel was replaced by the Christian church, and that’s an an anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian position. I get the sense you believe Israel does not deserve the land because of her unbelief. What Bible are you reading? That’s part of the plan. Once in the land, the spiritual work begins—and it is. And when she is planted back in the land, she will not be uprooted again (Amos 9). Most importantly, “When the Lord builds up Zion (Israel), He shall appear in His glory.” Psalms 102:16

Look, i think if you gave this book (the Bible) to five thousand people and said, read this, tell me what it says. Most everyone would come back and say, this is saying God would give the land of Israel back to the Jews. However, when you have to have a guru to tell you what it says, you now have a cult. That’s what makes me very nervous. I believe that’s what Akzed has, is a teaching that requires him to tell us what the Bible says, and you establish a position of authority for yourself, and I get real nervous about that.

When God said in Ezekiel 11:17, “I will even gather you (the Jews) from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.” I don’t know how much clearer He can be. He is promising the restoration of His chosen people to their promised land. That happened as predicted on May 14, 1948 after about 2600 years. The Jewish people returned to their historical homeland and Israel became a nation again (for a second time). Do a Google search and verify it for yourself. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Ro. 1:8, “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”

Col. 1:23b, “…the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.”

Again, I agree with and support apacalyps. Hanagraaf is a preterist and a huge disappointment.

abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM

You know it abcurtis. Good job!

Maybe you (Akzed) should reread the passage in question and rephrase your hyperbolic statement. Mat 23 and Mat 24 were different contexts in terms of location, people being addressed and subject.

theregoestheneighborhood on May 16, 2008 at 1:46 AM

Akzed is using Bible passages indiscriminately — out of context — which makes it very difficult to reason with him. Great summary theregoestheneighborhood. That was an excellent response!

Again, I agree with and support apacalyps. Hanagraaf is a preterist and a huge disappointment.

abcurtis on May 16, 2008 at 11:13 AM

I don’t listen to him.

Eph. 2 says the middle wall of partition between Jew and gentile is kaput. He says there is neither Jew nor Greek. he says that the true Jew is circumcized in his heart, not his flesh. He wishes peace upon the Israel of God after saying that circumcision is nothing. To hold to your novel, recently developed system, you must discount all of this and more in the NT, as well as in the ancient Fathers who never heard of your interpretation. If you’re happy with that, fine.

Do you listen to Hank Hanegraaff, host of the Bible Answer Man radio program?? If you are STOP listening immediately .. he is NOT a good source of information. He teaches that the nation of Israel has no future because she is replaced by the Christian church. That idea produces a mindset that is viciously anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. He teaches most of the Book of Revelation was fulfilled by events approx. 2000 years ago in 70 AD. Akzed, this is NOT sound Bible study and interpretation. He’s embraced his own wacky version of a Bible prophecy. The Bible teaches that Israel has a future in God’s plan, and most of the events described in Revelation is yet to be fulfilled. Look man, you need to side with God and His Word on this issue rather then Hanegraaff. Forget about your pride man and do the right thing. We need you on our side, not the enemies. Check this page out. In my opinion it’s the best on the Internet for learning about the end times.

Prophecy Topics

apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Again, I agree with and support apacalyps. Hanagraaf is a preterist and a huge disappointment.

a book which is itself filled with internal contradictions and ambiguities.

Annar on May 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Point out a couple to me, please.

apacalyps on May 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Your interpretations of these passages and understanding of these matters is not to be found during 18 centuries of Christian theological production. My view, and the matters you condemn, were and remain the mainstream view. Dispensationalism is a mess and a pack of lies, its proponents are mercurial and depend more on modern events to shape Scripture interpretation than on Scripture to shape their views. You don’t know how to interpret the Bible and are obviously woefully ignorant of history.

>Maybe you should reread the passage in question and rephrase your hyperbolic statement. Mat 23 and Mat 24 were different contexts in terms of location, people being addressed and subject.

They went out from the temple to the Mount of Olives. The Holy Spirit placed these passages where they are even if they were separated by days or weeks, because this is how He wants us to consider them.

>More to the point, your assertion that God divorced Israel is completely unsupported by Scripture, and is therefore nothing more than a personal opinion.

The penalty for adultery was not only divorce, but burning. The death of the adulteress freed the husband to remarry, in this case, to remarry by taking the Church as His bride.
Also, when Jesus said (twice) “All these things shall come upon this generation,” wee need look no further than the book of Acts to see their fulfillment. What isn’t found there can be found in Wars of the Jews by Josephus.

>Before the New Testament was even complete, some of the Thessalonians thought Christ had already returned, and Paul set the record straight. Darby was obviously not the first to believe in the return of Christ.

Right. And St. Paul told them that before Christ would come to destroy Jerusalem the man if sin must be revealed (2 Thes. 2), in other words, Nero.

>It’s really much worse than that for your theory. The fact is that the early church expected Christ to return at any moment. John even alludes at the end of the Gospel of John to the popular belief that Jesus would return before John died, while pointing out that Jesus had not actually promised John would still be alive when He returned. theregoestheneighborhood on May 16, 2008 at 1:46 AM

Right, and He did, leading the Roman armies to sack Jerusalem as He prophesied.

The Olivet Discourse is framed by the same verse, beginning (Mt. 23:36) and end (Mt. 24:34): “All these things shall come upon this generation.” Mt. 23:35 is described in Mt. 24. I cannot imagine a less valid criticism of the use of context in the history of theological debate.

Maybe you should reread the passage in question and rephrase your hyperbolic statement. Mat 23 and Mat 24 were different contexts in terms of location, people being addressed and subject.

Mat 23: Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and condemning them for their self-righteousness and hypocrisy. (Technically, he was speaking to the “multitude” and to his disciples, but since he kept saying “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” it’s fair to infer he was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees among the multitudes)

subject: hypocrisy of scribes and Pharisees; location: temple; people addressed: scribes and Pharisees

Mat 24: Jesus left the temple and sat on the Mount of Olives, where his disciples came to Him and asked specifically about the sign of His coming, and the end of the world. (Note: the world did not end in AD 70).

subject: end of the world; location: Mount of Olives; people addressed: disciples specifically, not the multitude

So there’s a very clear break in context here.

If God destroyed Israel for her sins and did not restore her, Jesus could not come back as He had foretold.

Israel was condemned for what the prophets called “harlotry,” e.g. being found with her skirt over her face, Nah. 3:5, like a wife caught in adultery. So God divorced her and married a spotless virgin acc. to St. Paul, Eph. 5:22f; Rev. 21:2,9. God is not a bigamist.

No, God is not a bigamist. God also does not recognize divorce. Rather, as Jesus put it,

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

More to the point, your assertion that God divorced Israel is completely unsupported by Scripture, and is therefore nothing more than a personal opinion.

Your view was absent from the church until john Darby made it up in the 1800’s and C.I. Scofield popularized it in his reference notes.

Absent from the church? Before the New Testament was even complete, some of the Thessalonians thought Christ had already returned, and Paul set the record straight. Darby was obviously not the first to believe in the return of Christ.

It’s really much worse than that for your theory. The fact is that the early church expected Christ to return at any moment. John even alludes at the end of the Gospel of John to the popular belief that Jesus would return before John died, while pointing out that Jesus had not actually promised John would still be alive when He returned.
Akzed on May 15, 2008 at 9:17 AM

Dont let the christian right lay sole claim to christianity. The political left is finally going to wake up and use it as a marketing technique just as the political right has been doing.
…..
Roger Waters on May 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Matthew 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

This is the only “right” and “left” that the true Christian should care about.

But the word of the LORD endures forever.”
Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

1 Peter 1:25

Dont let the christian right lay sole claim to christianity. The political left is finally going to wake up and use it as a marketing technique just as the political right has been doing.
…..
Roger Waters on May 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Very true, the left will try to lay claim to Christianity since they see it as a useful appeal to the religious.

But it won’t work so well for them. You see, the conservative Christians actually believe their faith, while the liberal Christians believe only so much of it as conveniently fits into their liberal worldview.

If it’s politically incorrect to speak of sin, justice, judgement, adultery, homosexuality, then the liberal Christians will see nothing wrong with any of it. Being so quick to sacrifice their “Christianity” for any prevailing winds of political correctness, they have thrown over any firm attachment to “Christian” principles except the ones they like.

Prophecy Topics

The very notion that one would respond to an argument in a political thread by citing biblical verses is ludicrous, but some seem to think that all debate must be formulated within the confines of a book which is itself filled with internal contradictions and ambiguities.

Annar on May 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM

You don’t know much about how our politics and Constitution were based on concepts from Bible verses. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible.

Try reading American Political Writing During the Founding Era, 1760-1805