Posted on 09/01/2006 5:32:18 AM PDT by xzins
You don't support Hasidic Judaism?
Please be specific, I like their hair, for instance.
Based on your post. You indicated that you don't "like" them.
Because there are many faithful Christian denominations and churches that would fall within the definition. God will judge the sheep from the goats. Ultimately is is a question of faith.
However, the Jewish question for futurist dispensationalists is not a question of faith. It is a question of race, or gentics, or lineage, or parentage, or however you wish to define it. But it is clearly something other than a belief system, because no futurist can say what that belief system is. I've yet to encounter a futurist/dispensationalist who can answer the question, "who exactly is 'all Israel' in Romans 11:26?" All they can say for certain is that it is not "spiritual Israel" (whatever that means).
Can you do better?
Just as an aside, not to divert the thread, recently some Hasidic Jews were busted for illegal activities, but then so have been the Mennonites and the Amish. Just by being born into a sect or group, doesn't make you Godly.
If it were really crucial God would have given us the information in an infallible form. No basic tenet of the Christian faith depends on that knowledge.
break for shopping, bank, and supper. Later.
IOW we DO know this crucial fact.
NO! NO! NO! DEAR BROTHER. YOU ARE PLAINLY AND OBVIOUSLY WRONG! [tee hee]
"we" on this thread don't.
Some are evidently blinded by the perfectly pure white light coming of some curious cubes.
Some of US do.
LOL.
Obviously P-M is no historian since no historian worth his salt would make that sort of claim.
The mere existence of many competent historians and theologians on the "other side" of the issue makes the above statement of little value.
It's this preaching to the choir kinda stuff that folks seem to think will win arguments, but never does.
Voluminous external and internal evidence establishes the logical date of Revelation AFTER 70 AD. It is pointed out in this paper and we've had the debate before.
For hundreds of years these same fathers have been asking questions of events depicted in Revelation as if they are FUTURE.
I guess John the Revelator just forgot to tell them it had all already been fulfilled. No preterist, that one.
The evidence is against the preterist position, and it is obvious. Marlowe, a lawyer was making that case as a lawyer in closing argument: the DIRECT comment on the issue (not to mention all the supporting external and internal evidence) actually HAS A CHURCH FATHER SAYING it was written by John in the reign of Domitian.
If I were on a jury I would rule against the preterist position as not having made its case. It has not met the burden of proof, and it has not disposed of the evidence presented against it. It has nothing even approaching the direct evidence of a Church Father's testimony on its behalf.
***I've researched Smith's statement. It was properly modified for those who were listening.***
It was on his radio broadcast of questions and answers.
*** And their house was left unto them desolate. And still there are some that don't believe you should evangelize them?***
Just an interesting point here.. Jesus said their house (temple) was left desolate to them! You will no more see me till you say "Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord".
One week later Christ rode into town on a donkey and the people cried "Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord!"
The closest records available for the time about John is Iraeneus', written around 186AD. This would be almost 100 years from the closest date of John's imprisonment (around mid-90s). In tracing my genealogy, even with today's census and on-line information, I can get back 100 years but it is difficult and information is sketchy. I know who my relatives were and their general location but nothing specific. If you have ever tried this you know the problems one encounters. Think of trying to do this without the advantages of written records, search engines, and time/distance and you'll understand the issue. It would be like asking your grandmother where her grandparents lived in 1890.
Yes, the people weren't the problem
Why do you wish to interpret all of Judaism as not being believers in our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus?
Yep. I found a write-up on it while having another conversation on FR about 6 mos - 1 year ago.
My only requirement for those attempting to interpret prophetic scripture is that they: make sure they let folks know they are interpreting and not prophesying.
You realize that according to Matthew Jesus repeated this line AFTER he had entered Jerusalem and right before the Olivet Discourse, don't you?
And no one of those Jews afterwards said, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."
***My only requirement for those attempting to interpret prophetic scripture is that they: make sure they let folks know they are interpreting and not prophesying. ***
Maybe God has allowed a lieing spirit in their mouths as he did when Ahab went up wih Jehosephat to war.
Interesting point, years ago I read that the canon of scripture was not closed because the Roman church rejected Hebrews and the Greek church rejected Revelation.
These were added to the canon only after each agreed to accept the other's book.
How would our bible look today if these two books were excluded.
I consider Heberews to be a very important book but personally distrust Revelation for many of the reasons in this thread.
Salvation is based on the belief in the shed blood of Christ and not on whether there is a thousand year reign on earth with a pre-mid-post trib arrival of Christ.
Such arguments take away precious time from studying more important doctrines.
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.