Posted on 09/01/2006 5:32:18 AM PDT by xzins
I can only conclude that you have made a mistake in reading the passage that you quoted.
If you wish to join Judaism, then go ahead.
You will discover that when Israel is mentioned in the bible it does not necessarily refer to you.
How old is the earth P-M? Is it 6,000 years as some claim or is it 6 billion years? Aren't you one to believe it is only 6,000 years old? Aren't you going against the evidence?
I've read some of this "evidence". I wouldn't place my apples in this cart.
The issue is "pre-scripted" or "foreknown."
It is one thing to say, TC54 was pre-scripted to write post #XYZ, and it is entirely another to say, TC54 was foreknown to write post #XYZ.
You would be wrong. TC54 has already acknowledged today that the late date of Revelation has considerable evidence.
It is clearly the most compelling.
One of my very best friends (a Ukrainian Orthodox Christian) calls me a Heretic to my face.
And he's not joking. He means it; he's quite serious.
Respectfully, mind you. Kindly. Lovingly. One concerned Amateur Theologian to another. Truly believes that I am a Heretic, and is concerned enough for my spiritual well-being to say so. I respect him for that; and in turn, as a good Orthodox Christian, he doesn't mind sharing the Antidoron even with a cantankerous Calvinist whom he does consider to be a Heretic (at least as compared to the "One True Faith", i.e., Orthodoxy).
I don't mind. Sticks and Stones... but words will never hurt me, right?
As a convinced Calvinist, I may disagree with his belief that I should join the Eastern Orthodox Church -- but at least I know he loves me enough to care.
****
You're the Boss. You can declare "Heretic" an "off-limits word" if you want to. I'll try to respect that.
But some folks need to get tougher skins on their inner emotional child, if one is to discuss "True or False, Black or White" about anything.
Agreed.
But not necessarily a dispensationally futurist book. Historicists are "futurists" insofar as their future begins in the second century. Dispensationalists are really futurist oddballs in that their "future" doesn't actually begin until after the secret pretrib rapture. Isn't that what you guys think happens in chapter 4 verse 1, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this."?
All evidence (both internal and external) points to a post 90AD date for the book of Revelation.
Rather dogmatic. I would agree that some fallible external sources provide superficial support for the idea of an AD90's date for the Book of Revelation.
1. I don't recall 1/3 to 2/3 of the human race over the whole planet being obliterated in that era.
2. I don't recall wormwood being cast into the sea and 1/3 of the sea life dying and 1/3 of the waters becoming undrinkable.
3. I don't recall 1/3 of the vegetation of the whole planet dying.
4. I don't recall Damascus being utterly and totally destroyed never to be lived in again in that era.
. . .
. . .
. . .
Careful, I don't think I used that phrase. It is certainly not what I believe. All I conceded is that the date of Revelation is not an infallible dogma. Which is all I've ever said at any time.
Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on your part. I still do not believe the late date evidence is as compelling as the early date evidence.
If the pre-AD70 date is true your futurist system is very much in jeopardy.
= = =
NOT at all.
That may be the law, custom, doctrine, habit, . . . whatever . . . in Holland. Last I checked, Holland did not include the whole planet under their forced rule and mind set.
Perhaps but I have no dog in this fight except to say that the author's statement that "God has preserved His people" in reference to the Jews is flat out wrong and directly contradicts 1 Peter 2:9.
Besides, the evidence that the earth is 6 billion years old is equally compelling.
Well, actually no since I base my concept of "the authentic, God-instituted expression of Judaism" as what is defined in the Bible.
Now, if you can map the biblical religion of the Jews to modern Judaism that would be an interesting exercise.
I'm glad to hear it because it is by far the stronger case.
That means that any inclined to be preterist must switch to some form of "historical" fulfilling of those items which preterists have already agreed are in need of fulfillment; i.e., not symbolic.
That is a remarkable concession.
= = = =
I agree. It's a remarkable concession. Probably a hurried oversight. I certainly wouldn't count my tulips before they're picked.
I didn't know you believed the earth to be 6 billion years old.
Are you a theistic evolutionist?
Let's end this obviously erroneous insistence that every instance of Israel/Jew must always mean Church/Christian. It simply isn't supportable biblically......
The histrionics involved in tossing around the words heresy/heretic, notwithstanding.
= = = =
Very well said, imho.
I never used the phrase "considerable evidence" or anything remotely resembling that phrase. Do you agree? Thus, for you to say to our friend HarleyD that "You would be wrong" based on my testimony is inaccurate.
Thanks.
It seems that any real interpretation of the scripture would at least insist that one must read each passage and see what it has to say.
Thanks.
I think any reasonable study of the evidence without tidy boxed bias would result in the same conclusions.
No, I wouldn't change my advice to Harley. His comment above indicated a total rejection of the idea. And you were far from that. You conceded that the 90's AD position was an acceptable one.
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.