History Channel Announces "Global Event" For May 25th...

http://www.lookupfellowship.com/2009/05/history-channel-announces-global-event.html ^ | May 14th, 2009

[TaraP]

The History Channel has been running an unusual 14-second ad that simply says:

"May 25, 2009. A Global Event. This Changes Everything."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Eg7ICKJrhg

Maybe this? ISBN:9780316070089 Library Bound #: 619216

Format: Hardcover

Price: $28.99 Pub Date: May 2009

Lying inside a high security vault, deep within the heart of one of the world’s leading museums, is a discovery that will change textbooks, change science, and change how we understand the human race.

The author of Untitled has been given exclusive access to all of the research and the team of top scientists who have been validating the discovery, the announcement of which will send shock waves around the world.

The discovery will be announced at a major press conference followed by a media blitz and a documentary that will air on the History Channel following the press conference.

More deception?

[Quix]

BLESSED BE THE NAME AND WORD OF THE LORD.

Raining here. Maybe I’ll get to transcribing that thing after all.

[Quix]

BLESSED BE THE NAME AND WORD OF THE LORD.

[Lee N. Field]

In Amillenialism has all prophecy been fulfilled? If not what's left.

No. The only people who think that are "full preterists", who most everyone regards as heretical for having an unorthodox view of the resurrection.

What remains? The great apostasy, the loosing of the adversary and the final conflict. The resurrection of the dead, the catching up of the church, the visible return of Christ. Christ judging the world, turning the kingdom over to the father. Cosmic renewal. This age ends and the age to come has fully come.

Capiche? Sound familiar?

[Lee N. Field]

the center of everything is Jerusalem

Which Jerusalem? The Jerusalem below that is in bondage, or the one above that is free?

[wmfights]

Capiche? Sound familiar?

Snippy, snippy.

What remains? The great apostasy, the loosing of the adversary and the final conflict.

How does the great apostasy occur with the man of lawlessness not being able to perform fake miracles, signs, or wonders. Where would the man of lawlessness get the power? Satan is bound according to the amillenial interpretation.

[wmfights]

Which Jerusalem?

Doesn't the new Jerusalem settle on the same spot?

[raynearhood]

Also, Amillenial theology seems to empower any church that claims to be Christ's sole representative on Earth. If the millenial kingdom has begun and Christ is reigning from heaven with his "special" representatives on Earth carrying out His will why give us the New Testament. Scripture stands in the way.

This is in no wise Amillenial eschatology (not theology). I don't recognize this at all. Many "churches" claim sole representation of Christ on earth that aren't even part of the universal body of Christ. All after what I highlighted above makes little sense to me, even if I try to replace "any church that claims to be" with "all Christians that are..." I guess I just don't understand what you are saying as it really has nothing to do with eschatology.

[Mr. Mojo]

So what’s it going to be? Any leaks yet? If it’s “global warming” fearmongering I may just have to boycott the channel forever.

[TaraP]

Just on the LINK..

Media Hype.....

We came from Lemurs now...

[wmfights]

This is in no wise Amillenial eschatology (not theology).

It wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong about something.

However, it seems that the churches that believe in amillenialism also believe in replacement theology. Doesn't it follow that since they believe they have assumed the role of evangelizing the world before Christ's return that it would require that converts submit to their doctrines.

[topcat54]

You are absolutely correct, my brother.

[Quix]

NOPE.

NO CIGAR.

The evidence is tooooo overwhelming.

Besides, 8 years would be more than sufficient . . . as well as more years influenced by parents from such a background.

[Lee N. Field]

The evidence is tooooo overwhelming.

Besides, 8 years would be more than sufficient . . . as well as more years influenced by parents from such a background.

Amazing.

Sooooooo. Tell us about your childhood, Quix.

[Quix]

I’ve commented on my ATTACHMENT DISORDERED childhood a number of times . . . some at reasonable length . . . hereon.

I doubt you missed it.

If you did, tough tacos.

My childhood was quite intensely RELIGIOUS . . . but probably at least AS SPIRITUAL as it was RELIGIOUS . . . and certainly nothing like the strict, narrow rigidity of most RC childhoods.

[raynearhood]

would require that converts submit to their doctrines.

Hmmm... OK, I see where you're getting now.

Well, as far as submitting to doctrines goes... yes and no. It really all depends on what you mean by doctrines. If you mean the Doctrine of the Trinity, yes. If you mean the Doctrine of the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ being the only means by which one can inherit the Kingdom of God or the inerrancy of Scripture or Original Sin or that salvation is a gift of grace given by God, not earned by works then yes.

If what you mean is do we insist that one must believe that Covenant Theology is the only way to God or that the Christian must believe in amillennialism to be a true Christian or that one must submit to belief in all the five points of the TULIP acrostic to be a true Christian, then a resounding no!

I'll give you two quick examples:

Dan Phillips is a contributor to the Pyromaniacs Christian blog and a member here. Dan is a dispensationalist. I have never gotten into a discussion with Dan on eschatology (nor do I intend to right now, I'm pinging him out of courtesy) but, if I would I'm sure we would disagree. Judging from his passionate style of writing and my love of good fight, we would likely vehemently disagree.

But, I would never question Dan's faith or salvation. On the contrary, I have no doubt (as far as I can have no doubt having never met him) of his salvation and I am glad to call him a brother. Our differences aside, I believe Dan to be one of the better Christian writers on the internet and I am often challenged and edified (as well as entertained) by his contributions. I would never dream of insisting that Dan be amil or postmil in order to reconcile himself to God.

I love my mother-in-law. The two of us live under one roof and yet we do not agree on many points of theology. She is dispensationalist and her beliefs are that of a church that sort of was started by Billy Graham (I don't know the whole story). Anyhow, for all of our disagreements I have never doubted her faith, either.

Eschatology is a peripheral matter. Granted, I believe some serious and damaging fallacies are the result of dispensational theology (because it is a theology of more than just the end times) and that too often those fallacies fall to heresy.

BUT I would never question a Christian's salvation nor call them a Satanist, a demon, a liar, a hater of Scripture, a seller of lies, a teacher of "doctrines of demons," in cohorts with Satan, a scoffer, a heretic, or a naysayer simply because they have nifty charts to help them divide the promises of God into neat dispensations.

Seems to be the opposite of what you may think, because I personally have been called all of those things and I've had my "Christian credentials" questioned by a number of dispies (not just on the web, but old friends in "real life," too) because I am no longer a dispensationalist. It isn't peripheral to them, somehow believing in the "futurist" interpretation of Scripture is central to the faith. I must adhere or I am rejected.

[Star Traveler]

Hi Quix, I was just catching up on some older posts and some information that I had wanted to include.

I had said the following to you — “Say, did you know that the Zionist movement, started at the end of the 1800s, at one time considered using some land in Africa for starting a new nation, to be the homeland of the Jews.”

—

They were considering Uganda for a homeland for the Jews.

That information is hard to come by. And I’ve read bits and pieces of it over the years. But, the Jews want to suppress some of that information, because they think it’s some kind of “political ploy” to the current status of things, to bring that piece of information up. And there’s some “re-writing” of history, it seems to me, as to what really happened (by some of the Jewish sources). This is just what I’ve seen over the years by reading various things. So, one source or another one is not going to tell the whole story, and probably not exactly accurately. But, the basic information is there.

The country the Zionists were considering (at least some of them, anyway, including Herzl), was Uganda. But, as you’ll see there was a split, and different factions emerged within the Jews themselves. Although Herzl was the recognized leader, many went against him.

First, in regards to some Christian leaders contacting Herzl, about relocating Jews to Uganda for a homeland for the Jews — I’ve read several different accounts, and like I said, this information is hard to come by, and trying to round it up again from what I know I have read in the past, is difficult. But, I did come across this one piece. It mentions

---

The rise of Evangelical Christian Zionism in the United States can be traced directly to John Nelson Darby (1800-82), by far the most important personality for the development of Evangelical Christian Zionism. His preaching of Future Premillennianism influenced prominent Evangelicals such as Dwight L. Moody, C.I. Scofield and William E. Blackstone. [Blackstone, in his bestselling book, “Jesus is Coming,” called Zionism the fulfillment of prophecy.4 In 1891, he organized a national campaign to urge President Harrison to back a Jewish state in Palestine, and gathered extensive support from governors of leading states, major newspapers, and financiers such as John D. Rockefeller, Charles B. Scribner, and J.P. Morgan. It is likely that this campaign was the first organized lobbying effort in the U.S. on behalf of Zionist causes. When Blackstone heard that Theodor Herzl was considering Uganda or Argentina for the Jewish state, he sent the Zionist leader a Bible marking every passage that referred to Israel and Palestine, with instructions that Palestine alone should be the Jewish state.5]

[ http://www.christianzionism.org/Article/Wagner04.asp ]

---

This is an article discussing Christian Zionism, which was prevalent and strong back in the 1800s, and as a result of Premillennialism and Dispensationalism (i.e., the correct ways of viewing and interpreting the Scriptures).

Note that there was also a *organized* and well-funded, well-represented and national campaign in the United States to establish a homeland for the Jews in “Israel” (then having the name of Palestine) — and this was done *before* the Jews themselves organized the Zionist Congress with Herzl.

The above quote said...

—

William E. Blackstone. [Blackstone, in his bestselling book, “Jesus is Coming,” called Zionism the fulfillment of prophecy. In 1891, he organized a national campaign to urge President Harrison to back a Jewish state in Palestine, and gathered extensive support from governors of leading states, major newspapers, and financiers such as John D. Rockefeller, Charles B. Scribner, and J.P. Morgan. It is likely that this campaign was the first organized lobbying effort in the U.S. on behalf of Zionist causes.

—

SO..., you’ll see that establishing a homeland for the Jews was going “full-force” in the 1800s and was well-established and funded and by Evangelical Christians.

You’ll also see in that article, this comment, too...

—

The most important instrument at the popular level for advancing futurist premillennial theology was the 1909 publication of the “Scofield Reference Bible,”which quickly became the primary edition used by most American Evangelicals and fundamentalists for the next sixty years.

—

And a lot of people still used the Scofield Reference Bible (for the side notes and other verse references). It’s been updated and expanded, of course, since then. I remember one pastor of mine saying that the best Bible to get (this was back in my early years) was the Scofield Bible. Actually, now I have a Thomas Nelson Study Bible, which I think is very good. I got it because of Earl Radmacher being the General Editor, and he was President of Western Seminary (at that time, known as Western Conservative Baptist Seminary) at one time, and he preached several times at our church and I had read a certain amount from him. Also, another good reason was Moishe Rosen from Jews for Jesus was a contributor to articles in that Bible, along with Susan Perlman from Jews for Jesus, too, having worked with her on a Portland campaign of Jews for Jesus. And then, there’s Thomas Ice, from the Pre-Trib Research Center, who is a strong supporter of the Rapture. I use a lot of his materials here on Free Republic, too.

And then in the following is another account of the “Uganda Scheme” from a Jewish source. They’re not going to mention the Evangelicals that contacted Herzl about his idea of Uganda, but you can find that from other sources.

---

The Uganda Scheme

A. The Kishinev Pogrom At Easter 1903, a pogrom of unprecedented dimensions swept through Kishinev. It deeply shocked the Russian intelligentsia, including Gorky and Tolstoy, as well as European public opinion.

B. Herzl in Russia The Russian government now sought to soften the effects of the pogrom and invited Herzl to Russia for “discussions” with its heads government. Herzl responded favorably, because he wished to obtain permission for the Zionist movement to operate legally in Russia. He also felt this would be an opportunity to show support for Russian Jewry and moderate the authorities’ attitude towards its Jews.

In Russia, Herzl met Minister .... von Plehve. Although there were no direct outcomes from this encounter, his visit provided the opportunity to meet with the Jewish masses who came to see their “king”, an overwhelming and emotional experience in itself. He returned home under the impressions of this encounter and their hardship, determined to reconsider the Uganda proposal as a temporary option. Almost immediately followed the sixth Congress in Basle.

C. The Uganda Proposal - The Rift and its Consequences

Herzl reported to the six hundred delegates at the Zionist Congress on his journey to Russian as well as the failure of negotiations with both Turkey and Germany. Then he dropped his Uganda “bombshell”. A furious argument erupted between supporters of this proposal and its opponents. A proposal was brought to send out a committee of inquiry to Uganda. 295 delegates voted in favor; 175 against; 132 abstained. The rift was unavoidable. Most of its supporters were from western Europe, while its opponents were the Russian Zionists [including the Kishinev contingent]. The Russian Zionist leaders accused their west European colleagues, and particularly Herzl, of not understanding the terrible tragedy taking place in eastern Europe. Weizmann [later, the first President of the State of Israel] said they had not understood that, “Russian Jewry, with all its suffering, is not prepared to translate its dreams and longings for the land of their fathers to any other location.”

The leader of the “nays” was Dr. Yehiel Chlenov, who maintained that Herzl’s victory would herald the downfall of the Zionist movement. At the height of the furious debate, many of the dissenters to the proposal left their seats, wept openly, fainted or sat on the floor as a sign of mourning. There was serious concern that the Zionist movement had come to the end of the way. Herzl now appreciated the force of the opposition and the only way open to him was that of reconciliation. In his last addreess to the Congress, he reiterated that Uganda was only a temporary solution, raised his right hand and vowed: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning.”

The Uganda Proposal demonstrated that Herzl failed to understand the depths of belief in Zionism, in particular among the Russian Zionists [and despite the fact that it was intended to resolve the situation of Russian Jewry.]

Herzl, after the failure of the Uganda Proposal, was a broken man. Over the seven years he had led the Zionist movement, his health had deteriorated; after “Uganda”, there was a further deterioration. Nevertheless, he continued his efforts towards the ultimate goal and traveled to meet the Pope and the King of Italy. In July 1904, he died of heart disease.

“Only once in several millenia is such a wonderful person born,” wrote seventeen-year old David Gryn [later, David Ben Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel] of Herzl at this time. His words spoke for many.

In August 1949, Herzl was reinterred in Jerusalem, under the terms of his will, on the site of the Mount Herzl, named in his honor.

The Education Department of the Jewish Agency for Israel
Unit for Jewish Education in the CIS

Editor: Yossi Pnini Internet Version:
Editor: Gila Ansell Brauner

[ http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/act/14zion.html ]

---

You can see that God started working through both Jews *and* Bible-believing, Premillennial, Dispensational, Evangelical Christians — for a *movement* to create a homeland for the Jews, about 100 years before Israel became a nation again in 1948.

And remember, this “movement” (on the “Christian’s side”) certainly did not come from those of the “Reformed Faith” (or Covenant Theology type of churches) or Catholics — which teach and abide by “Replacement Theology” (a defective and totally unbiblical teaching, which is teaching “doctrines of demons”). And those groups (in their theology, teaching and majority of memberhip) are still *against* Israel, to this day.

[Star Traveler]

You’ll note I referred to *this attitude* up above...

“Today, it is hardly even recalled except by those who are making polemical arguments against Zionism.”

That is the last sentence of the quote I include below...

---

The Uganda Proposal is part of the Timeline of Zionism.

This proposal was made by Theodore Herzl in 1903, reluctantly, toward the end of his life when he found that all his efforts had made absolutely no progress toward convincing the British (occupying Palestine) that the Jews deserved a homeland in Palestine. His attitude was that, as ridiculous as a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine might seem, it could still function to save Jewish lives in the event that any Jewish community anywhere in the world faced fresh persecutions. (It was the roaring anti-Semitism that erupted in France during the Dreyfus affair that convinced Herzl the Jews must have a homeland.) He wondered if the British might be willing to give Jews a place of their own outside of Palestine, and at various times considered Madagascar, and Uganda.

The idea got virtually no support from any of the other Zionists. The reason why is interesting to consider. Herzl was rather unique, in that he was utterly assimilated, having grown up with nearly no knowledge of the religion, or Jewish values and principles. (It was probably this external perspective that enabled him to see the Jews as a national group, instead of as a religious group.) But, for the other Zionists, who spanned a wide range of religious practice yet had all grown up with a better understanding of Jewish ideas, it was inconceivable that any land other than the ancient homeland be considered for the location of a Jewish state. So, in short, the Uganda proposal very quickly went nowhere. Today, it is hardly even recalled except by those who are making polemical arguments against Zionism.

[ http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Uganda:Proposal.html ]

---

The Zionist Jews (and perhaps some other Jews, too...) are extremely sensitive to this being brought up, and I’ve noticed that their reactions have created some changes in the “history” as it’s recounted today. In other words, a bit of “re-writing” of things to make it seem a bit different than it was.

I believe this was a much more serious proposal than many of the Jewish Zionists make it out to be. Of course, there was opposition, but... “where there are three Jews, there are four opinions”... too... LOL...

Now, mind you, I don’t support (wasn’t alive back then, but indicating my attitude towards it) the “Uganda Solution” either. I would have been part of that Premillennial, Dispensational Evangelical crowd, back then, to lobby Herzl to consider “Palestine (i.e., Israel) and not Uganda. But, I’ve been attacked here on Free Republic for bringing that up and my “aims” in doing so were questioned... :-)

BUT, even if Herzl was a totally and “utterly assimilated” Jew, we can see that God uses all people and all types, in order to carry out His will — and that *will* of God, includes the re-establishment of Israel as a *nation* before Him — and *forever* too...

There is *no Replacement Theology* with God.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a Zionist, and Jerusalem is the apple of His eye.

[Lee N. Field]

I’ve commented on my ATTACHMENT DISORDERED childhood a number of times . . . some at reasonable length . . . hereon.

I doubt you missed it.

If you did, tough tacos.

You missed, or avoided, my point.

You're good at that.

[Quix]

Where some are concerned,

it’s the most fitting thing, to do.

However, most of the time, I don’t deliberately miss points.

[raynearhood]

The evidence is tooooo overwhelming.

Reply 150 An incapacity or unwillingness to understand the DIFFERENCE between demonstrably solid evidence for LACK of chance occurances vs whackiness seems to be a genetic level flaw in lots of rigidly narrow and willfully blind folks

Reply 383 The evidence screams far too loudly . . .However, even if I were to lay it all out in great detail . . .I assure you, the residue of the Vatican system is very evident on a fair number hereon.

In the timeless words of Inigo Montoya

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."