Posted on 08/07/2006 6:18:10 AM PDT by topcat54
David Brog has written Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State. The ten reviews I read on Amazon were quite favorable, and it is being advertised on WorldNetDaily. The fact that the Foreword was written by John Hagee, author of Jerusalem Countdown, From Daniel to Doomsday, Beginning of the End, and Final Dawn over Jerusalem, is a clear indication that the book’s thesis fits with the modern-day prophetic system known as dispensational premillennialism. I doubt that the book covers what this article reveals.
In my debate with Tommy Ice at American Vision’s Worldview Super Conference (May 26, 2006), Ice pointed out that one of the unique features of the dispensational system is that near the end of a future, post-rapture, seven-year tribulation period, Israel will be rescued by God. After nearly 2000 years of delayed promises, God will once again come to the rescue of His favored nation. Ice and other dispensationalists imply by this doctrine that they are Israel’s best friend, and anyone who does not adopt their way of interpreting the Bible is either anti-Semitic (Hal Lindsey) or a methodological naturalist (Tommy Ice).
In the debate, I wanted Tommy to explain how a belief in Israel’s glorious future results in the slaughter of two-thirds of the Jews living at the time the Great Tribulation nears the end of its seven-year run. I quoted the following dispensational writers to show that there is no glorious future for “all Jews who are under siege,” to use Tommy’s words, in the dispensational version of the Great Tribulation.
There are geopolitical implications to the dispensational system that some people have picked up on.
Dispensational theology as it relates to Israel is alarming to some Jewish leaders as well. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, asks, “To what extent will a theological view that calls for Armageddon in the Middle East lead [evangelicals] to support policies that may move in that direction, rather than toward stability and peaceful coexistence?”(2) The most probable scenario is that prophetic futurists will sit back and do nothing as they see Israel go up in smoke since the Bible predicts an inevitable holocaust. It is time to recognize that these so-called end-time biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, and Zechariah 13:7–9 is certainly one of them. Those Jews living in Judea prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and who fled before the assault on the temple were saved (Matt. 24:15–22).Convinced that a nuclear Armageddon is an inevitable event within the divine scheme of things, many evangelical dispensationalists have committed themselves to a course for Israel that, by their own admission, will lead directly to a holocaust indescribably more savage and widespread than any vision of carnage that could have generated in Adolf Hitler’s criminal mind.(1)
1. Grace Halsell, Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War (Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill & Co., 1986), 195.
2. Quoted in Jeffery L. Sheler, “Odd Bedfellows,” U.S. News & World Report (August 12, 2002), 35.
Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.
Permission to reprint granted by American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.
I found these - do they count?
You ask topcat54 whether he goes to church on Sundays
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1679115/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1679115/posts?page=24#24
You claim a special blessing for yourself, for your dispensational support of modern-day Israel
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1679115/posts?page=153#153
You rephrase someone else's words, to claim they said they're more spiritual than you
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1679115/posts?page=188#188
See post 247. Note the last sentence.
Now this is an interesting challenge. On the one hand you want "proof" that the events of AD70 satisfied the prophecies of the old and new testaments, and on the other hand you denigrate preterists for using "the gospel of Josephus" to witness to the case.
Which position shall we take to satisfy your schizophrenic request?
BTW, how is the use of Josephus as a historical witness to the events of AD70 different than futurists using the historical accounts of the emperor Domitian and the writings of Irenaeus to support the notion that Revelation was written in or about AD96?
Methinks thou cannot see the theological speck in the preterist eye because of the log in your own.
Sorry, but the Jews may have delivered Christ to the Romans for crucifixion, but they are not "responsible". God sacrificed his own son. They did not take his life, he laid it down. Hence no man is responsible for that crime. It was God's plan and God executed that plan perfectly in accordance with his will. And when it was all done, Christ asked his father to forgive them "for they know not what they do."
Since space is limited, we are unable to treat all the current millennial views, but we do hope to give a brief, but accurate account of the main tenets of the four main existing viewpoints as well as some of the reasons - both Scriptural and interpretive - behind each view. These four main eschatological systems that we shall treat are as follows: dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Please realize that though these views differ significantly on the topic at hand, the Christians who disagree on these matters agree with each other on probably ninety percent of the rest of the Christian life.
Pinging all who have posted to this thread, to this excellent eschatological resource.
See my comments to Marlowe in #263. How do you know that Revelation was written in AD90's? Only from extra-biblical (i.e., fallible) sources.
Be careful when you knock the preterist's use of outside sources. It might just come back to bite you on your theology.
For one thing Irenaues, as I recall, Irenaus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a Disciple of John who was the author of the book. So the earliest record we have dating the book is 96AD. The earlier dating is simply based upon the assumption that it had to be written earlier than 70AD since John was supposedly referring to Nero as the beast.
My eshcatology is not contingent upon Revelation being written in 96AD. Your's is contingent upon it being written before 70AD. But you have no historical proof.
I gotta go.
So you are saying that Peter got it wrong and you got it right? "Men of Israel ... you denied the Holy One and the Just, ... and killed the Prince of life ...". Perhaps he didn't finesse the words quite right so as to not "offend" his Jewish listeners? What he really meant to say ... .
Does that make you spiritually superior to Peter?
Sorry, Marlowe. Unlike you, the Jews heard Peter words, understood the implications (that unless they repented and turned from their culpability in killing Messiah they would be eternally lost), and believed Peter's message by turning to the Messiah. They proved by their repentance to be among God's elect remnant of Israel, and were saved from the wrath to come. They transfered their allegiance from the decaying old kingdom to the new kingdom of Christ built on His apostles and prophets.
You are in denial of these things because they do not fit into your nice, neat theology. You would rather have God punish millions for no reason, rather than acknowledge the linkage in Scripture between actions and consequences.
""Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God: ... But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:" (Deut. 28:1,2,15).
- Deut. 28:1,2,15, Dispensational Hermeneutic version
Tell us, was Irenaeus fallible or infallible? Did God in His providence perfectly preserve Irenaeus' words for us as He preserved the Bible? Did God promise to His church the ability to understand Irenaeus as He did with His own Holy Word?
My eshcatology is not contingent upon Revelation being written in 96AD.
Sure it is. You would have no reason to be a futurist otherwise. That's why folks like your friend xzins insist that Revelation must have been written in AD96. The alternative is devastating to the futurist view.
But you have no historical proof.
You mean we have no "gospel according to Irenaeus" to back our assertion?
Yes, I believe that.
I have it formatted and ready to post if you like :)
I'm not sure what a "nearly full preterist" is. Do you have a percentage breakdown that shows what one must believe in order to be considered "full" vs. "nearly full" vs. "not-so-nearly full"? Perhaps you're just thinking that if you can get a preterist close enough to "nearly full" you can call them a heretic too.
Speaking for myself, I affirm the historic, orthodox position on the subject.
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.BTW, our friend buggman believes that Matt. 24, etc does have some sort of fulfillment in the events of AD70. He admitted, "I actually agree with the preterist and historicist that the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation (the latter in spite of its date of authorship) actually do prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD."
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
and shall give account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. (Athanasian Creed)
What sort of preterist does that make him?
It is just as hateful to allow the killing Jewish babies in the Bethlehem of yore as it is to allow the deaths of Jewish unbelievers in a judgement of the future.
To the best of my knowledge, the killing of the infants around the time of our Savior's birth was not because of any overt sin on the part of the Jewish people, now was it?
On the other hand, the events of AD70 were predicted by Jesus are completely in the context of punishment for "killing the prophets". Jesus refers to this as the "days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled". The "all things written" refers to everything He has spoken before. And "vengeance" must refer to the vengeance of the Lord (Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30).
In fact, you call into question God's righteousness in judgement, as if God cannot impose terribly destructive judgements and still be a righteous God.
Oh, He can and He does. But as I pointed out in this particular case, God never gave a prophecy about a future events without reason. And the context of the 2/3 massacre in Zech. 13 is plainly in the context of the particular sin of of Israel. What you need to do in order to apply this to events 2000+ years removed from the 1st century is to make the 2/3 Jews killed during your futurist holocaust somehow responsible for 1st century events. And then you need to have God violate His own law by punishing that generation 2000+ years removed from those events.
The inconsistencies in your theory are insurmountable.
Yes, I believe that.
But they will still die in their sins. The "messiah" that they believe in cannot save them. Either they believe in the messiah of the rabbis, or they believe in the Messiah of Scripture.
"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:9-11)
The prophets of Israel point to Jesus, not some future messiah.
"Then He said to them, 'O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?' And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27)
The fact that they do not see Jesus as their Messiah is more evidence of what was spoken through the prophets.
"And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'" (Matt. 13:14,15)
Peter did not claim that the sin of the Crucifixion was on them. He merely pointed out that they had played a role in the death of Jesus. The fact is that Jesus asked the Father to forgive them of that particular sin.
Sorry, Marlowe. Unlike you, the Jews heard Peter words, understood the implications (that unless they repented and turned from their culpability in killing Messiah they would be eternally lost), and believed Peter's message by turning to the Messiah.
Whether they had participated directly or indirectly in the crucifixion would have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they were eternally lost. Each was born with the stain of sin and each had committed other sins so that they were eternally lost without Jesus no matter what their prior sins. Their lost condition was not dependent upon Crucifying Christ. They did not take his life, He laid it down for them.
You are in denial of these things because they do not fit into your nice, neat theology.
And I suspect you think that you think you are a better Christian for your eschatology than us Pre-mils? Shall we continue with this mind reading game?
You would rather have God punish millions for no reason, rather than acknowledge the linkage in Scripture between actions and consequences.
Shall I include this line in my evidence that you guys think your eschatology makes you better Christians, or more "obedient" as Mr. Smedley says? We now have at least two who have shown that attitude. Are there any others?
That is simply not true. It is irrelevant when Revelation was written. Most of the events in Revelation cannot be documented as having even a remote chance of having occurred in 70 AD. While the persecution of Nero and the destruction of the Temple can be gleaned from the passages, that does not mean that the persecution of Nero or the destruction of the Temple was the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecies. Nero was simply a portend of the ultimate fulfillment of the book.
So I could care less if it was written in 64 AD or 96 AD, it was not fulfilled in 70AD. The preterist's position, however, is fully and totally defeated unless the book was written prior to 70AD. And there simply is no extrinsic evidence to support that theory. There is strong extrinsic evidence to show that it was written AFTER 70AD.
So your eschatology is contingent upon a pre-70AD book of Revelation. Mine is not.
I will concede your point. So instead of saying that there are many on this board who think they are more spiritual because of their eschatology, I will state that there are many on this board who think they are "more obedient" (and hence better Christians) because of their eschatological viewpoint.
Is that better?
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. (Against Heresies, Book V, chapter 30.3)Preterists, whose position requires that Revelation have been written before Jerusalem’s fall in 70 A.D. (for it undeniably claims to speak of events yet future as of its writing), will try to make the case that Irenaeus was actually referring to Yochanan being seen “towards the end of Domitian’s reign” rather than the “apocalyptic vision.” But how many of us would refer to a revered Apostle with the neuter pronoun “that”? The argument that the pronoun was changed in the Latin translation but was correctly preserved in the Greek quote preserved by Eusebius does not hold up, as we'll see in a moment.
Besides which, Irenaeus’ interpretations of Revelation are decidedly consistent with modern premillennialism. Bear in mind that he wrote Against Heresies primarily as an apologetic work. If Revelation were really so manifestly a prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction, wouldn’t the early Church fathers have recognized it and used it as a part of their witness? Yet history tells us that’s not what happened. Only centuries removed from the event was the “discovery” made of Revelation’s supposed intent to prophesy of Jerusalem’s destruction.
Nor is Irenaeus the only person to comment on the time when this book was written. Eusebius quotes Irenaeus and goes on to cite others that were also exiled during Domitian’s reign in support of Irenaeus’ dating:
And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ. (Ecclesiastical History, Book III, chapter 1; see also Book V, chapter 7).If Eusebius understood the Apostle to have been exiled during Nero's reign, why exactly would he offer the exile of other Christians during Domitian's reign as proof that "they"--his sources, evidentially not limited to Irenaeus--"indeed, accurately indicated the time"? Is it not more likely that a scribal error, or even an original typo, crept into Eusebius' work than to assume that he himself misunderstood Irenaeus' statement so aggregiously? Moreover, the above testimony is sandwhiched between two other chapters describing Domitian's persecutions, which would be absurd if Eusebius understood Irenaeus to be referring to Yochanan being seen in Domitian's reign after an exile under Nero's.
If only these two fathers recorded Yochanan's exile to have taken place in the 90s, this would be enough to put the nails in preterism's coffin. But they were not alone: Victorinus wrote that “when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, chapter 10.11), in agreement with Jerome (Illustrious Men, chapter 9) and Hippolytus (On the Twelve Apostles). Nor can the case be made that when the early Church fathers spoke of Domitian in regards to the Apocalypse, they really meant to write ”Domitianou,” a title for Nero, as some have tried to claim. Eusebius speaks of both Nero and Domitian in his works, and never once refers to the former emperor by any name other than Nero. If every early Church father stated in no uncertain terms that the book was written in Domitian’s reign, why in the world would we try to date it decades earlier?
Simply arguing that Irenaeus is fallible is barely a fig leaf of a counter-argument, and amounts to begging the question: The only reason to assume that Irenaeus (and Hippolytus, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome) has the dating of the Revelation wrong is the presumption of preterism, which requires an early date.
Now, if there were any competing traditions from the second through fourth centuries, there might be some reason to doubt all of the above fathers. The closest thing one finds to such a competing tradition is found in the intro of the book in the Syriac version, which reads, "The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.” However, to cite the Syriac version, you have to ignore the fact that in the original Syriac translation that is dated from the second century, the books of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not included. The others had been put back in by the fifth or sixth century, but there seems to be some doubt as to whether Revelation was included even then. Indeed, one source states that Revelation “did not appear in the Syriac Testament as late as 1562.” Even if we argue that that date is too late, the fact is that the Syriac version of Revelation’s title was written, at a minimum, four centuries after Yochanan recorded it and is contrary to every other manuscript of the book and the witness of at least five early Church fathers. How exactly is this a point in preterism’s favor?
The fact is that there is really no question about the dating of Revelation except among those who require a certain date in order to make their particular interpretations viable. In this regard, it should be noted that a futurist, premillennial interpretation of Revelation does not depend upon the 90 A.D. dating of the book, and in fact will work perfectly well even given an earlier authorship. That being the case, it should be up to those requiring the earlier date to prove their supposition with clear and decisive evidence.
Back to you, TC.
Many are simply blinded to the truth as Paul says. If they are among the elect, they shall know the truth and accept Him and they will not die in their sins.
Most welcome. I am most pleased that this poor premillennialist, who has never had the foretaste of God's glory that you have, could be His instrument to illuminate the Scriptures for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.