Free Republic

Don’t know much about this movie, nor the director, but if the director is to be Jewish, I would feel much more comfortable if I knew Prager was the director. The movie would probably reflect his conservative morality.

Thanks for the clarification, Fruchtenbaum does indeed teach at prophecy conferences.

I’ve seen him at several prophecy conferences. I don’t really like his style, but I do appreciate what he is doing here.

You raise all kinds of questions. Who are you referring to here? This French fellow who pushes the doctrine that the 2nd coming and resurrection took place in 70AD? That's but a "style" to you? And you appreciate what he is doing here? Sounds like you might be preterist yourself.

Dennis Prager is a fine conservative, he is also Jewish, not Christian, and if you listen to his talk show very long he is going to make sure you are aware of it. I disagree with his basic premise below:

Having taught the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) from the Hebrew for more than 40 years...I consider the Biblical flood story one of the world’s most profound moral teachings...it means that God cares about goodness more than anything else.

The New Tesament, which Prager does not believe in, says Jesus Christ, not the law of Moses, is God's eternal purpose, Christ was predestined from the beginning. It teaches man's goodness through the keeping of the Mosaic law counts for nothing without Christ.

Jews teach the law given to Judaism at Sinai as if it were the sole revelation of God to man. It is not, Jesus Christ is God's revelation to man also, an even greater revelation. The Mosaic law is but a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, Gal. 3:24.

Obama reminds me of Joseph Smith founder of Mormonism. Nobody knew his past either, there was a book written about it, “No Man Knows My History.”

Hard to post a thread, dartuser, without this space cadet from another planet, planet Preterist, trying to poison it. He believes the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ and the 1st resurrection (Rev. 20) took place in 70AD...and as if that wasn’t spaced out enough, he’s not sure whether he is a Full Preterist Amillennialist or a Full Preterist Postmillennialist.

There is not the slightest hint in his writings that he had ever heard of any such thing as Preterism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism...reason being it hadn't been invented yet.

I forgot to include Pretrib Dispensationalism, Irenaeus wouldn't have heard of it either, John Darby invented it some 1700 years later.

You stay out of a lot of trouble by taking that literal-grammatical approach.

I don't think the ECF would have called it that. Irenaeus eschatological beliefs, for instance, were taught him by Polycarp, who in turn was taught by the apostle John...who wrote the Revelation. His strong Rev. 20 based belief in a future earthly millennium would thus have come down to him (via Polycarp) from John himself. His futurist post-trib premillennialism, he considered apostolic.

There is not the slightest hint in his writings that he had ever heard of any such thing as Preterism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism...reason being it hadn't been invented yet. This stuff Freneau pushes around here, certainly not.

I’ve actually tried this numerous times on Bible students who have not every heard of such eschatological doctrines as Dispensational Pretrib, Amillennialist, Preterist, and Postmillennialist. I live in a part of the world where this is a very valid test (before the internet)

I ask them what they come up with on the tribulation, resurrection, second coming, and millennial. Without fail, they come up with the view known today as “Historic Premillennialism, i.e., all these things have not yet happened, they lie in the future, the 1st resurrection and 2nd coming closes out the great tribulation while ushering in the millennial reign of Jesus Christ on this earth. Which, as you might guess, is also what I believe.

This is the same view we see in the ECF (Early Church Fathers, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, etc.).
Now why, we might ask, would these students come up with this view?

Because that’s the way Matt. 24, Thess. 1 & 2, and the Revelation naturally reads!

These other doctrines are pure theory read into the word of God. Concocted in the mind of man...a form of humanism. They are not there. Some, especially the Preterists, are the worst at twisting the scripture to make them fit their preconceived theory. Such doctrines had not been invented yet in the time of the ECF.

It’s really pretty simple, if you believe you are in the millennial of Rev. 20 now, a spiritualized thousand years, then you are an amillennialist.

If you believe the world is getting better and better (not worse and worse), more and more Christian every day (not more anti-Christian(, you are not in the millennial yet, it will be realized when Christianity has Christianized the world, at the end of which (thousand years) the 2nd coming takes place, then you are a Post-millennialist.

You can’t be both, either

you are in the millennial now...

or you are not in it yet, at the end of which the 2nd coming takes place.

So which are you, Amillennialist or Postmillennialist?

I repost:

The rule by Christ and his saints on earth after the 2nd coming is presupposed in the Bible. In the book of Daniel, we see it prophesied in such passages as the following:

Daniel 2 pictures a succession of earthly kingdoms, the last one crushed by a stone from heaven, after which it becomes a great “mountain” (“mountain” is prophetic scripture signifies a kingdom, or world empire) filling the whole earth. The “stone” from heaven crushing the last kingdom, the kingdom of antichrist, is the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ -

Dan. 2:35, the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Daniel 7 also pictures a succession of earthly kingdoms, the last one cast down and repossessed by the saints of the most High. The last earthly kingdom, that of the “beast” or the antichrist, is taken over by the saints.

Dan. 7:18, But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Dan. 7:22, Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Dan. 7:27, And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High

In Rev. 20, that those of the first resurrection are the ones who rule on earth with Christ should be presupposed by Bible believers - such passages as these above from Daniel, for example. It is only those influenced by some variation of philosophic Gnosticism that see otherwise.

The rule by Christ and his saints on earth after the 2nd coming is presupposed in the Bible. In the book of Daniel, we see it prophesied in such passages as the following: Daniel 2 pictures a succession of earthly kingdoms, the last one crushed by a stone from heaven, after which it becomes a great “mountain” (“mountain” is prophetic scripture signifies a kingdom, or world empire) filling the whole earth. The “stone” from heaven crushing the last kingdom, the kingdom of antichrist, is the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ -

Dan. 2:35, the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Daniel 7 also pictures a succession of earthly kingdoms, the last one cast down and repossessed by the saints of the most High. The last earthly kingdom, that of the “beast” or the antichrist, is taken over by the saints.

Dan. 7:18, But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Dan. 7:22, Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Dan. 7:27, And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High

In Rev. 20, that those of the first resurrection are the ones who rule on earth with Christ should be presupposed by Bible believers - such passages as these above from Daniel, for example. It is only those influenced by some variation of philosophic Gnosticism that see otherwise.

The Paul DNA is libertarian, not conservative. There is a difference.

Her on the RF, the RCC pushing threads we’lll have to endure are going to make it sound like he did in fact take the joint over.

It is the Roman Catholic Church that has given Christ and Christianity a bad name. I refer to the many wars fought in the name of (so called) Christianity.

Enter NKP, hitting the RF with thread after thread bashing Protestants while pushing his totalitarian, tyrannical, brutal Roman institution. This he does on one hand, while on the other, hitting the atheists on this thread for the same tyrannical and brutal things his institution is known everywhere for. go figure.

It is your institution, sir, that has given the left in general, the atheists in particular, all the ammo they need in their fight against true Christianity.

When the antichrist finally takes his seat of world power, resulting in a massive persecution of Christians, it will be you and your institution the root enabler. Speaking of enabler, your current marxist Pope comes to mind.

There is lot of hate and discontent stirred up by the under the law sacred namers on the tetragrammaton and how is should be pronounced, yet where is this controversy in the NT? Under the law sacred namers condemn each other to the lowest infernal regions for the slightest deviation from how they claim it should be pronounced: Yahweh, Yahovah, Jehoveh, Yahuah, Yahoo, and so on.

Yet when we go to our Strong’s Concordance and try to find “Yahweh” or any of these other names in the NT, they are not to be found. What we do find everywhere in hundreds of places is the name “Jesus” (the English transliteration of the Greek “Ieseus”) This tells me that “Jesus” is the name all the focus should be on - as the New Testament or new covenant name of God.

If the Jewish writers of the NT were under the law sacred namers, we would expect they would have left the tetragrammaton untranslated in the Greek text, so that great emphasis be put on this. But this we do not find. They simply translated the tetragrammaton as the Greek “Kurios,” our English world “Lord.” The Jewish translaters of the Septuagint did likewise several hundred years before this.

The Jewish writers of the NT certainly knew this tetragrammaton issue, and the Hebrew and Greek on it, better than any of these modern under the law sacred namers.

This Pope’s admirers are:
1. Papists,
2. Marxists.

Try reading your Bible.

This from Romans who burned Tyndale at the stake for the grevious crime of publishing the Bible in English? Actually they WANTED to burn him, they relented and strangled him at the stake instead. A Roman, no less, telling non-Romans to read their Bibles? Give me a break.

“Three days later, at the third hour, “Suddenly the Lord Jesus Christ came with a great multitude of angels, and a great light came down upon the place, and the angels were singing hymns and praising the Lord. Then the Savior spoke, saying: ‘Come, most precious pearl, enter into the treasury of eternal life.”

Say what! Catholics believe THIS? Incredible I tell you. And it is we who believe Sola Scriptura, who don’t go around smooching the Koran, who are the heretics? Interesting stuff on this thread.

ROME isn’t even mentioned.

True, the primacy of Rome would not have been mentioned, as the writing of Revelation (late first century) was about five hundred years before the Bishop of Rome exalted himself over all.

Mistake: I meant to address my last post to you.

On your point 5, everybody - except our befuddled preterists - knows Revelation was written late in the first century. This gives time for the alleged successors of Peter to have been well known in the churches everywhere. Surely such a successor would have been, at the very least hinted at, in the Lord’s letters to the seven churches. No such hint, no mention. If Jesus Christ knows of no such Petrine succession, neither should we. Romanists know more than Jesus Christ?

As usual, your very thorough posts leave Papists naked and exposed. You definitely hit a home run here. All your points were excellent, but I especially took notice of your points 4 & 5:

4. Nowhere (in the Bible) is the church exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head.

5. Not once in the Lord's own letters to the churches (Rev. 2 & 3) is the pope even mentioned, despite the critiques, commendations and censures.

Since you are not Christian, I see now why you have no problem with the anti-christianism I mentioned (my comment about Christians being in the crosshairs), nor any problem with the Tea Party’s exclusion of social conservative issues.

Veeery interesting. I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks.

I’m not nearly so sure about Putin’s Christianity as you. As I remember, when Putin visited Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, he was interviewed by kids at the local High School, he was asked what his religion was. His answer: I am an atheist.

Might it be that Putin, that old former crafty anti-God KGB agent, only uses the Russian Orthodox Church to further his political aims? I would hope his alleged conversion is genuine, I have my doubts.

Great post, heye2mom. To comment on your statement here:

Libertarians are too lazy to traipse through snow to political caucuses in freezing cold Iowa like Christian Coalition volunteers.

I am an Alaskan, I don't know about the Christian Coalition in Iowa, but the hopped up on dope, long haired hippy libertarian types are the last I see traipsing through the snow in freezing cold to come to church.

Okay, you are not a “sir,” and you say you are religious (I notice you said “religious” and not “Christian”). And I do agree - partly - with what you said. I am no enemy of the Tea Party. But your equating the days of King George with today hardly fits, I think it is a false premise.

America was very Christian in the days of the revolution. So, yes, I agree with you, Christianity wasn’t the issue then, It was not in the crosshairs as it is today. The fact that IT IS IN the crosshairs is the very reason Tea Partyers should NOT just be focusing only on taxation and financial issues!

I think, were the Pilgrim and Puritan types of that day to attend most Tax Party meetings today, they would be aghast at their libertarian type of rhetoric, I think they would side with me, not you, on this issue.

Maybe you didn’t notice what I said in my recent post, it deserves repeating:

“Freedom of religion isn’t part of the Constitution? Maybe you haven’t noticed the major war being waged against religion in general, and Christianity in particular, by atheist, humanist, and hedonist types.”

Your comments seen strange coming from southern North Carolina. Looks like the Bible belt isn’t as strong in those parts as it used to be.

“The tea party is about the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence! It isn’t involved in social issues unless they are enumerated in those documents.”

Freedom of religion isn’t part of the Constitution? Maybe you haven’t noticed the major war being waged against religion in general, and Christianity in particular, by atheist, humanist, and hedonist types. You, sir, sound like a libertarian..of which most are the aforementioned types.

If the TEA Party seeks to avoid social issues, they are nothing more than a bunch of libertarians, in my view. They will be jeopardizing their support from Christian conservatives such as myself.

You sound like an atheist...deist, agnostic

Re: my comment that this is political dynamite and legs need to be put on this. Think about it, folks, Holder and Obama allowing illegals to flood into the country vs this one Christian family from Germany. Conservative politicos should jump on this big time.

Red staters should not let this die, legs need to be put on this. The very fact that Holder attempted to do this to this family is political dynamite. Holder must have known this causing him to back off.

The fact that Tennesseans were up in arms over this, vowing civil disobedience, seems to be overlooked on this thread as a reason why this ruling against the Romeike family has been overturned. Hats off to the Tennesseans who rallied for these foks!

Correction:
when HH denied he was a Preterist, he said he was a “Exegetical Eschatologist.” What a cop out.

Toward the end of the debate, HH must have realized he had lost the debate. About all he had left in his bag of tricks was to snarl at Mark Hitchcock for saying he was a Preterist.

Amazingly, he argues for Preterism throughout the debate then turns around and denies that is what he is; acting highly offended when he is asked “If you claim you are not a Preterist, what then are you?” His answer, “I’m an investigative eschatologist” is cowardly... and hilarious. Preterists, I’ve noticed, are like that, very shy about admitting that is what they are.

The biggest tank battle of all time was at Kursk not Kharkov.

I gather they are called the black watch because of the black they wear? And what is “watch” supposed to mean?

"Heaven" is merely a circumlocution for a Name of the Almighty.

Which name of the Almighty? YHVH? Elohim? And can you give an example in the NT of this circumlocution you are talking about? Other than "kingdom of heaven."

Your comments stirs me to repost something I posted to the thread, “Fascination with Francis Stirs Protestants Hearts.” It caused a bit of heat on that thread, but, sad to say with this latest news, it turns out I was spot on. This lead article confirms what many of us here have seen all along about this Pope. Now it’s out in the light of day for all to see.

In that thread, I said:

I have zero fascination for this Marxist Pope, ‘Stirs Protestant hearts?’ Give me a break!

Put a Marxist in charge of the Roman church, the Catholic FReepers cover for him at every step, they do it all the time on the RF. Whatever political conservatism they might have goes out the window it seems, it apparently doesn’t mean diddly to a Catholic.

The founder of liberation theology, the Latin American-inspired Catholic theology advocating for the poor, received a hero’s welcome Tuesday at the Vatican as the once-criticized movement continues its rehabilitation under Pope Francis.

God help us. Fellow FReeper Catholic who are political conservatives else you wouldn't be on FR, please wake up and smell the coffee. You should cease and desist from calling yourselves conservative FReepers if you can't make a stand against this Marxist Pope. This needs to be put in caps:

THE ONCE-CRITICIZED MOVEMENT (Marxist Liberation Theology) CONTINUES ITS REHABILITATION UNDER POPE FRANCIS

You brought up this about Abraham and Isaak. Makes one wonder how many other such like things there are in the book. For those of us who haven’t read the book, can you give other examples?

I agree with your take on this. Sounds new age to me. I had never heard of this until this thread, thanks for the heads up.

I note some on this thread seem to think this is but another “private revelation” similar to other books along this line. Not if this book gets “legs” and becomes a major devotional standard! Which, apparently it is doing.

The Pilgrims and Puritans were Christians who came to this country seeking religious liberty. Early America, except for a few deists here and there (almost all of them Freemasons), was very much Christian. America was certainly NOT founded by atheists.

Conservatives seek to “conserve,” or preserve, original beliefs and values, in America’s case, it’s Christian heritage. Enter Notary Sojac an atheist who claims he is an American conservative. Is he seeking to “conserve” the Christian heritage of America? Absolutely not. He, thus, is no American conservative.

Maoist China was founded on atheism, there are “conservatives” there who bemoan the Christian meetings now taking place, who seek to “conserve” that country’s original atheism. Seems to me like Sojac should move to China, his kind of atheist conservatism would fit right in.

But how do you know the "new testament" has the true and authentic interpretation of the messianic prophecies? THIS is what none of you chrstians ever explain.

We owe the New Testament (NT) revelation to Jews such as the twelve apostles and Paul, what makes you think you know more than the Jews who gave us the NT?

Moreover, you are not even a Jew, for heavens sakes, you are but a Gentile from Tennessee claiming your are a Jew, you are but a so called "Noahide."

What makes you think you are the last word on the Jewish written NT, coming on this Christian forum thinking your anti-Christianism is the last word on the NT?

What makes you think you know more than the Jews who gave us the NT? Who lived two thousand years closer to the Jewish-Christian milieu that gave us the NT, than you?

Are you that conceited that you actually think yourself superior to these other Jews (the apostles and Paul)?

Thanks, Daniel, I notice a place name, “Urkish,” not far from Harran on your map. Maybe traceable back to Abraham’s Ur? If so, it doesn’t look like he made that big of a trip from Urkish to Harran.

Thought provoking post, daniel. Your map, however, for someone who only knows English, is not very helpful. Where on your map are all these cities mentioned, Haran, Ura, Urfa, Ur Kasdim, and the names of cities “corresponding to Abraham’s relatives: Peleg, Serug, Nahor, and Terah?” All of which are supposed to be nearby to Haran.

In reading through this thread, when I came to your posts it came to mind, “this guy is probably an atheist.” It took Ansell to wring it out of you, good for him.

No wonder your hero is Ayn Rand the atheist.

I think it sneaky of you, as an atheist, coming on this thread about whether Jesus would support socialism. This is a Conservative Christian site opposed to socialism, you know. Jim Robinson, the owner of this site is neither an atheist or a socialist.