Posted on 08/02/2006 5:37:46 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
When Tim LaHaye talks, the faithful listen—by the millions. The conservative Protestant minister is the coauthor of the wildly popular apocalyptic “Left Behind” novels. The controversial books, which have sold more than 60 million copies, depict the biblical end of the world: the Christian eschatology of the upheaval that precedes the second coming of Jesus Christ, known also as “end times.” LaHaye recently spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Brian Braiker about why he believes the events currently unfolding in the Middle East reflect biblical prophesy.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Only what I read in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. That's it.
I believe what is written there, literally and word for word.
"If that were truly His intent, it was not expressed specifically in that discourse and that discourse was addressed to a multitude in Jerusalem - a city where many Gentiles lived."
Gentiles?
Anyway, the vast majority were Jesus' own people and it was to them He was addressing the "love thy neighbor."
That's how I interpret this expression.
I agree, although I grieve when I hear that one or two of our guys have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. (I really grieve over those helicopter crashes where many are killed in one day). At any rate, that is not near the death toll of say D-Day. It would be hard to imagine.
Some of the Hasids and other "Ultraorthodox" Jews --- even in Israel --- don't believe the present-day state of Israel is the nation of Israel predicted in prophecy. This is because it's a secular democratic state which does not require Jews to keep kosher and follow the Torah.
It didn't take much nerve, in my opinion. Certainly less nerve than it took Cyrus Scofield to bill himself as "Dr. Scofield" for years when he hadn't earned a doctorate or even enrolled in a doctoral program.
For my crackpot claim I need only look to his note on Revelations 1:20 in which he declares that the letters to the seven churches really mean seven coming ages of church history - without a shred of substantiating evidence from any other place in Scripture.
But let's change the tone of the discussion.
By all means, let's.
I think you'll agree that RC Sproul ( an articulate sokesman of the covenant school) would handle these discussions with tact and grace and NEVER ever slander Schofield like you did so let's not say such things.
Slander means intentionally saying something that one knows to be false. I do not believe that my statement was false - I uttered it believing every word of it.
Mr. Sproul chooses not to discuss Scofield's qualifications or personality at all, and I would agree that the most Christian thing to do would be to pass over Scofield in silence.
Now that that's behind us, I return to my original point - which is that LaHaye's publishing empire does nothing to upbuild the Church and actually tends to undermine it with sensationalism and baseless speculation.
Regarding the speculation about the time of the Second Coming -- you are absolutely right. It is silliness and very superficial. It is contrary to Scripture and does great damage to serious dispensational thinkers.
It seems that your opinion is not so radically different.
I thoroughly understand why that could br upsetting. However,and you may know bette,r but when I visit the Religion section of FreeRepublic the topic board seems almost entirely Catholic so I've always felt that FreeRepublic had a slight bias IN FAVOR of Catholicism.
Exactly. Unfortunately, making money off the Word is big business today and comes from all schools of thought. It's very regrettable.
That's a big one. Basically, think of prayer more as communion with God or a turning of one's heart to Him, more than a laundry list of complaints and requests 8-)
Prayer. An exhaustive and exhausting treatment of the topic, but worth the effort.
...and a couple of times God repented (Ninevah, etc)?
And "changed His mind," and the like. Again, this is figurative speech. The "change of mind" represents more how God is perceived by human beings. Particularly in the Old Testament, a theologically naive people often anthropomorphized God.
"Doesn't necessarily follow. God cannot be moved, so all attributions of human characteristics to God in Scripture are figurative."
I agree with you and Thomas Aquinas.
But while TA makes excellent arguments for the existence and immovability of God, the God of the OT, imo, is not the same as the God of TA. They may both be referring to the same and one God (they must as there is only one), but the descriptions or argument of its existence differ. One, TA, makes a good argument for its existence, while the OT does not, imo.
I'm reminded of a Christian evangelist years ago in a telecast entitled, "Does God Exist" or one such theme. I listened to it, and while I believe in the existence of God, the poor evangelist failed utterly at making his case. Failure in this case does not imply non-existence.
"For my crackpot claim I need only look to his note on Revelations 1:20 in which he declares that the letters to the seven churches really mean seven coming ages of church history"
Scoffield is not alone in this reasoning, as the church ages do seem line up with church history.
http://www.google.com/search?q=seven+churches+in+revelation+seven+church+ages&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
A Gentile is a non-Jew.
Anyway, the vast majority were Jesus' own people and it was to them He was addressing the "love thy neighbor."
He said "Amen, amen, I say to you" not "Amen, amen I say to Jews."
And the vast majority of Jerusalem's population in 30 AD was not Jewish. The majority was almost certainly Jewish, probably 60%, but there were plenty of Greeks, Syrians, Romans, Idumaeans, Persians and others living there.
The forecourts of the Temple in Jerusalem were known as The Court of the Gentiles and were cordoned off specifically so the large crowds of Gentiles walking Jerusalem's streets would not accidentally wander into the Temple precincts.
That's how I interpret this expression.
I'm sure it is. the problem is that there is neither a textual nor an historical basis for that interpretation.
"Your posting of Jesus meaning that Jews are supposed to love only Jews, etc. is totally disproven with this parable that Jesus Himself told and taught."
Was the Samaritan Jew or non-Jew?
If he was, it supports my argument that a Jew helped other Jews. If he wasn't, it's irrelevant in that my argument was that by "love thy neighbor" Jesus was addressing His own people, ie help each other with no mention of helping the non-Jews. Therefore, if the Samaritan was non-Jew, he was not following Jesus command.
That's the way I see it.
In fact, several of the links quote Scofield's note verbatim.
It's a purely self-referential argument.
Your link reinforces my point: that the equation of the seven churches with seven ages of history is a figment of Scofield's imagination and is not substantiated by the Scriptural passage he is commenting at all - in any way.
Yeah, can you imagine if the MSM of today was at Cold Harbor in 1864?? About 2,000 killed in 20 minutes.
First, I was Catholic when I read the first Left Behind book, and I do not recall it leaving them out (actually, I think the Pope was raptured, which left a hole for the false prophet to fill, but my memory may be hazy, it's been a long time).
Second, you seem to have a real issue with people making money. I'm sorry, but that's YOUR issue. I cannot address it. The Left Behind books are not to compete with the Bible, any more than any other text with a Christian message. I don't know why the books and Lehay make you angry, and I'm sorry that they clearly do. God Bless you.
susie
As a student of Biblical Greek that is my own word-for-word translation of the Greek Textus Receptus.
Well that's magnificant...King James used close to 50 of the best scholars/translators available in the world at that time to translate the Textus Receptus into English and you just corrected and topped them...
You got a future ahead of you...
So we'll add "smart-ass" and "slanderer" to the list of personal insults then. OK.
My mistake in thinking I could be civil with you.
I guess that means the post in which you called me a slanderer was intended to be civil in tone. Oddly enough, I actually found the accusation of slander to be a little off-putting, but I soldiered on.
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.