Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:59 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 21  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 7:34 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
jdbrown wrote:
goalieman wrote:
jdbrown wrote:
Why would God want Israel to rebuild the Temple?


To be Christ's earthy throne when he reigns over the earth during the 1000 year period of time after He comes back to rule. It's one of many possibilities............

Isn't the Temple supposed to be destroyed again?

Why would God use nonbelievers to build His Temple?


Well, that would beg the question: why would God put the still yet unbelieving jews back into their Biblical homeland again in the first place? Non-Christians help build churches, so I don't see any dilemma here.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 7:50 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
goalieman wrote:


Jesus was not speaking for Himself; He was speaking to His disciples by quoting prophetic Messianic Scripture (in their day, they knew Scripture well enough to recognize a passage from its beginning the way we would recognize a familiar song). Read Psalm 22, note verse 1, but then read it all the way to the end.

Basically, He was comforting them by reminding them that the Messiah was to suffer - so badly that He would appear as one forsaken by God - but that it was part of God's plan & He would ultimately & gloriously triumph.


It wouldn't appear that His disciples were very comforted by his telling them he was to suffer death. In fact, the were confounded by it and their faith in him shaken when he came to them where they were gathered after his resurrection. Truth be told, they really didn't "get it" until after he was crucified and resurrected.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Psalm 22 though. Extrapolate if you will. :)

Regarding the blood and wine issue, the Lord left us with two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's supper. Not sure what your position is on Baptism, but if Baptism is a symbolic event to indentify with Christ (as I believe it is), why would the Lord's supper also not be simply a symbolic activity among believers?

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 8:34 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
There is no need for an earthly temple.

Jesus taught that his resurrection was the raising of the True Temple of Israel [John 2:19-21]. He has replaced the priesthood, sacrifices, and sanctuary of Israel by fulfilling them in his own glorious priestly ministry and by offering, once and for all, his sacrifice for the world, that is, for both Jew and Gentile [Heb 8:1-6]. Believers from all nations are now being built up through him into this Third Temple [Eph 2:19-22, 1 Pet 2:4-6], the church that Jesus promised to build. [Matt 16:18, Heb 3:5-6]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:21 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
goalieman wrote:
Well, that would beg the question: why would God put the still yet unbelieving jews back into their Biblical homeland again in the first place? Non-Christians help build churches, so I don't see any dilemma here.

Exactly, why would God not have Christians go to Jerusalem to build this new Temple for Christ to rule from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:22 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Jdbrown, I wouldn't expect you to agree with there being a future temple being built considering that you've stated that you're a preterist (or a partial preterist). If you reject a literal return of Christ to the earth, than there would be no need for a Temple, Israel, etc. But if there is a literal return and the setting up of an earthly kingdom, then a Temple for the returned King makes sense. It's all in the method of interpretation.

But I do pose this question for you: if all the events described in Revelation, or at least most of them, already occured in A.D. 70, what was John writing about when he penned Revelation in A.D. 95? Why would he write that the jews needed to flee Jerusalem when it had already been laid siege to? That and the many other warnings given to the jews at that time would seem quite unnecessary 25 years after all that stuff already took place, don't you think?

Sorry, but of all the various interpretations of prophecy, Preterism is a very weak one. IMHO of course. :)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:33 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
jdbrown wrote:
goalieman wrote:
Well, that would beg the question: why would God put the still yet unbelieving jews back into their Biblical homeland again in the first place? Non-Christians help build churches, so I don't see any dilemma here.

Exactly, why would God not have Christians go to Jerusalem to build this new Temple for Christ to rule from?


scratch Maybe they will be Christian builders, but what does it matter? It's not the mortar, brick and steel (or whatever they use to build the Temple) that matters, it's who occupies the Temple.

In addition, much of the materials used to build Solomon's Temple were from foreign lands, were they not? And Zerubbabel's Temple apparently used some non-jewish labor used to build it. Not sure who physically builds the Temple is such an issue for you.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:57 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
goalieman wrote:
Jdbrown, I wouldn't expect you to agree with there being a future temple being built considering that you've stated that you're a preterist (or a partial preterist). If you reject a literal return of Christ to the earth, than there would be no need for a Temple, Israel, etc. But if there is a literal return and the setting up of an earthly kingdom, then a Temple for the returned King makes sense. It's all in the method of interpretation.

But I do pose this question for you: if all the events described in Revelation, or at least most of them, already occured in A.D. 70, what was John writing about when he penned Revelation in A.D. 95? Why would he write that the jews needed to flee Jerusalem when it had already been laid siege to? That and the many other warnings given to the jews at that time would seem quite unnecessary 25 years after all that stuff already took place, don't you think?

Sorry, but of all the various interpretations of prophecy, Preterism is a very weak one. IMHO of course. :)

The only grounds anyone has for purporting dating of the book of Revelation in the decade of the 90's is a single statement, quite obscure, written by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea . He quoted Irenaues, who lived from AD130 to AD202.

The bottom line is that there is some degree of uncertainty regarding what Irenaeus meant. Was it Domitian or Domitius (Nero) that Irenaeus was referring to? Where the book of Revelation is included in the Syriac versions it is referred to as "The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar."

At any rate, here is what Eusebius quoted:

"In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti-Christ], ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII)

Irenaues did not speak from firsthand experience, but heard this thought from Polycarp. Polycarp allegedly knew John personally.

Notice the statement: "it is not long since it was seen."

The problem here is that the word "it" in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book he wrote, or John himself. He could have meant, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen." And even if he was talking about the book of Revelation being seen at that time, this does not demand the book to have been written then. John did live until the time of Domitian.

At any rate, it is absolutely inconclusive to say the book was written then. We cannot tell if he meant that he saw John then, or saw the book at the time. And we cannot tell if he meant the book was written at the time.

Why grasp for this straw to propose that Revelation was written in the decade of the 90's ? It's too ambiguous. It's certainly not something to put your interpretive stocks in. Even if tradition has ascertained that this is what Irenaeus meant, we still have no grounds for anything solid along those lines.

Irenaeus is infamous, anyhow, for error in dates and times. He wrote a very strange and ridiculous dating for the age of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to the age of 50 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 10:25 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
Perhaps this thread could be retitled "The Inadequacy of Sola Scriptura Demonstrated in Real Time." ;)

I'm glad, though, at all the discussion. What other political forum would get into these topics? Not many, I think.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 10:42 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
Miserere wrote:
Perhaps this thread could be retitled "The Inadequacy of Sola Scriptura Demonstrated in Real Time." ;)

I'm glad, though, at all the discussion. What other political forum would get into these topics? Not many, I think.

Don't get me started quoting Scripture again. I've already been reprimanded for that at least a half dozen times this week. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 10:48 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
goalieman wrote:
Jdbrown, I wouldn't expect you to agree with there being a future temple being built considering that you've stated that you're a preterist (or a partial preterist). If you reject a literal return of Christ to the earth, than there would be no need for a Temple, Israel, etc. But if there is a literal return and the setting up of an earthly kingdom, then a Temple for the returned King makes sense. It's all in the method of interpretation.

But I do pose this question for you: if all the events described in Revelation, or at least most of them, already occured in A.D. 70, what was John writing about when he penned Revelation in A.D. 95? Why would he write that the jews needed to flee Jerusalem when it had already been laid siege to? That and the many other warnings given to the jews at that time would seem quite unnecessary 25 years after all that stuff already took place, don't you think?

Sorry, but of all the various interpretations of prophecy, [color=#FF0000]Preterism is a very weak one. [/color]IMHO of course. :)


Goalieman, do you believe that ANY of the prophesy contained in Revelation was fulfilled during the lifetime of its first audience? If so you can be considered a "partial preterist." Full Preterism is hard to harmonize with all of the text (as well as Matt 24) but Partial Preterism is quite a moving target of what was and what was not fulfilled in the first generation of hearers. If none of it was fulfilled we are sort of left with the question as to why it was only written to be seen fulfilled by "future" believers.

The reason that the Church might be forewarned in 95 A.D. is because the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jews in 70 A.D. was neither total nor the end of their suffering. Nor was it the last time that the Jewish members of the Church might become confused into thinking that they should fight alongside their kinsmen of blood for the State of Israel rather than hold faith with their brothers in the Blood of Christ whose Kingdom was not of this world.

Even after Titus destroyed the Temple and took away 60,000 captives many Jews remained in the area of Ancient Israel. Christian Jews were especially still numerous (though still a minority) as they had largely heeded what they thought a warning by Jesus (Matt 24) to flee to the hills if such a situation presented and as such did not die with the zealots within besieged Jerusalem.

However that was not the end.

Even after Masada (which is generally and inaccurately thought of as the end of Jewish rebellion/resistance in the Holy Land) violence flared.

Finally in 132 A.D. (therefore within the lifetime of those who first received Revelation) a major Jewish revolt lead by Bar-Kokhba took place.

An Israel State was restored for two and a half years; coining money and reinstituting Temple sacrifices as the Romans gathered their forces and closed in.

This revolt was the last straw for the Roman Empire and they came down hard; obliterating everything that remained of Jerusalem, renamed it Aelia Capitolina (Aelia was Emperor Hadrian's family name), of now "Palestine"(in an insult to Jews by naming the region after their traditional Philistine enemies) rather than Judea. Contemporary records relate an orgy of bloodshed. Some 580,000 Jews died (the Romans also suffered far worse casualties than the Campaign of 66-70) and the survivors were barred from the city except for one day a year in which they could enter to wail at the remaining Wall of the Old Temple. Meanwhile Hadrian had established two pagan shrines on the grounds of the old Temple Mount.

Oh, and because the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land freaked out when Bar Kohkba (son of "the star" - a Messianic allusion to Num 24:17) started to make Messianic claims and refused to assist him, they survived and were still allowed to continue to reside in Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem).

That's why some folks think you can have a partial preterist explanation for at least some of the prophesy and it can all occur after 95 A.D. (if not later)

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:35 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 1022
Likes: 10
Liked: 14
Justgrace, I think I should apologize, I didn't mean to hijack your thread and turn it into an eschatological ping-pong contest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:39 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
jdbrown wrote:
Justgrace, I think I should apologize, I didn't mean to hijack your thread and turn it into an eschatological ping-pong contest.


Me too! :oops:

So in conclusion.

Obama is bad for Israel and a strong Israel is good for America. :)

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc Liked by: jdbrown
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:50 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
jdbrown wrote:
Justgrace, I think I should apologize, I didn't mean to hijack your thread and turn it into an eschatological ping-pong contest.


Actually, I think I'm the responsible party here. I asked something like, "what's the biblical basis for supporting the state of Israel" and it took off from there. :lol:

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 12:36 am 
Offline
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:16 am
Posts: 149
Location: Collinsville, IL
Likes: 30
Liked: 45
I am a seminary student. Studied this quite a bit.

After all of this study, I know two things for sure.

1. Jesus is Coming Back.

2. Nobody knows when, so be ready now.


I am a Panmillinialist.

It will all pan out in the end.

_________________
I LIKE MIKE, I STILL LIKE MIKE, I WILL LIKE MIKE.

Follower of Christ,Husband to Julia,
Father of Ezekiel, Grace and Nehemiah,
Pastor of Pathway Church
Bus Driver at First Student



Post by HuckyinKentucky has received Likes: 2 maryjthom, QuoVadisAnima
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 12:47 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
jdbrown wrote:
goalieman wrote:
Jdbrown, I wouldn't expect you to agree with there being a future temple being built considering that you've stated that you're a preterist (or a partial preterist). If you reject a literal return of Christ to the earth, than there would be no need for a Temple, Israel, etc. But if there is a literal return and the setting up of an earthly kingdom, then a Temple for the returned King makes sense. It's all in the method of interpretation.

But I do pose this question for you: if all the events described in Revelation, or at least most of them, already occured in A.D. 70, what was John writing about when he penned Revelation in A.D. 95? Why would he write that the jews needed to flee Jerusalem when it had already been laid siege to? That and the many other warnings given to the jews at that time would seem quite unnecessary 25 years after all that stuff already took place, don't you think?

Sorry, but of all the various interpretations of prophecy, Preterism is a very weak one. IMHO of course. :)

The only grounds anyone has for purporting dating of the book of Revelation in the decade of the 90's is a single statement, quite obscure, written by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea . He quoted Irenaues, who lived from AD130 to AD202.

The bottom line is that there is some degree of uncertainty regarding what Irenaeus meant. Was it Domitian or Domitius (Nero) that Irenaeus was referring to? Where the book of Revelation is included in the Syriac versions it is referred to as "The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar."

At any rate, here is what Eusebius quoted:

"In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti-Christ], ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII)

Irenaues did not speak from firsthand experience, but heard this thought from Polycarp. Polycarp allegedly knew John personally.

Notice the statement: "it is not long since it was seen."

The problem here is that the word "it" in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book he wrote, or John himself. He could have meant, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen." And even if he was talking about the book of Revelation being seen at that time, this does not demand the book to have been written then. John did live until the time of Domitian.

At any rate, it is absolutely inconclusive to say the book was written then. We cannot tell if he meant that he saw John then, or saw the book at the time. And we cannot tell if he meant the book was written at the time.

Why grasp for this straw to propose that Revelation was written in the decade of the 90's ? It's too ambiguous. It's certainly not something to put your interpretive stocks in. Even if tradition has ascertained that this is what Irenaeus meant, we still have no grounds for anything solid along those lines.

Irenaeus is infamous, anyhow, for error in dates and times. He wrote a very strange and ridiculous dating for the age of Jesus Christ. Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to the age of 50 years.


Jdbrown, this a is a nice try to cut and paste some various comments to try and bolster your position, but you're on a lonely island in trying to dispute the date for the book of Revelation. There is just no evidence to suggest an earlier date for the writing of that book, only a need to fit it into a theological framework that falls apart if the accepted date for the book is accepted. I would dare say it is your preterism that is grasping at the straw here.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 12:54 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Miserere wrote:
jdbrown wrote:
Justgrace, I think I should apologize, I didn't mean to hijack your thread and turn it into an eschatological ping-pong contest.


Actually, I think I'm the responsible party here. I asked something like, "what's the biblical basis for supporting the state of Israel" and it took off from there. :lol:


I was gonna blame QVA, but yeah, it's your fault too. :P

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 1:34 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
Southern Doc wrote:
goalieman wrote:


Goalieman, do you believe that ANY of the prophesy contained in Revelation was fulfilled during the lifetime of its first audience? If so you can be considered a "partial preterist." Full Preterism is hard to harmonize with all of the text (as well as Matt 24) but Partial Preterism is quite a moving target of what was and what was not fulfilled in the first generation of hearers. If none of it was fulfilled we are sort of left with the question as to why it was only written to be seen fulfilled by "future" believers.

The reason that the Church might be forewarned in 95 A.D. is because the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jews in 70 A.D. was neither total nor the end of their suffering. Nor was it the last time that the Jewish members of the Church might become confused into thinking that they should fight alongside their kinsmen of blood for the State of Israel rather than hold faith with their brothers in the Blood of Christ whose Kingdom was not of this world.

Even after Titus destroyed the Temple and took away 60,000 captives many Jews remained in the area of Ancient Israel. Christian Jews were especially still numerous (though still a minority) as they had largely heeded what they thought a warning by Jesus (Matt 24) to flee to the hills if such a situation presented and as such did not die with the zealots within besieged Jerusalem.

However that was not the end.

Even after Masada (which is generally and inaccurately thought of as the end of Jewish rebellion/resistance in the Holy Land) violence flared.

Finally in 132 A.D. (therefore within the lifetime of those who first received Revelation) a major Jewish revolt lead by Bar-Kokhba took place.

An Israel State was restored for two and a half years; coining money and reinstituting Temple sacrifices as the Romans gathered their forces and closed in.

This revolt was the last straw for the Roman Empire and they came down hard; obliterating everything that remained of Jerusalem, renamed it Aelia Capitolina (Aelia was Emperor Hadrian's family name), of now "Palestine"(in an insult to Jews by naming the region after their traditional Philistine enemies) rather than Judea. Contemporary records relate an orgy of bloodshed. Some 580,000 Jews died (the Romans also suffered far worse casualties than the Campaign of 66-70) and the survivors were barred from the city except for one day a year in which they could enter to wail at the remaining Wall of the Old Temple. Meanwhile Hadrian had established two pagan shrines on the grounds of the old Temple Mount.

Oh, and because the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land freaked out when Bar Kohkba (son of "the star" - a Messianic allusion to Num 24:17) started to make Messianic claims and refused to assist him, they survived and were still allowed to continue to reside in Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem).

That's why some folks think you can have a partial preterist explanation for at least some of the prophesy and it can all occur after 95 A.D. (if not later)


To question #1, I'd have to answer no to that but with the disclaimer that I'm not sure if you consider the letters to the 7 churches as prophetic or not. Some dispensationalists view them as 7 progressive stages of the church throughout history, a position I don't really agree with.

Your explaination of why the jews might need to have been warned in the A.D. 90 timeframe is, I dunno, not really as compelling as those warnings of Revelation pointing towards more dramatic end times events. By that time, if you were a jew, your life kinda stunk either way though.

There were certainly attempts by some jews to take back their land after A.D. 70, but not very successfully as you illustrated above. But with the Temple being destroyed and Jerusalem being trodden down, any jewish presence there was pretty inconsequential at that point.

But in closing, and as you pointed out, partial preterism is (and by design I might suggest) a moving target that it's adherants utilize so as not to get pinned down on where they actually stand on a particular point. Hank Hannegraff is a master at playing that game (he's a somewhat recent convert to partial preterism). Agree with dispensationalists or not, but we do let it be known where we stand on a given text. But even within dispensationalism there are differences of opinion on certain issues, so the debate never ends. :)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 4:24 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Have we ever been able to bring up Israel on this forum without having an extensive theological debate of some sort?
I. Don't. Think. So. :P

JustGrace, I strongly suspect you're quite used to this by now, but we can readily move the discussion(s) if you prefer!

"As iron sharpens iron..."
This has been interesting!

However, I've spent most of my evening reading & being distracted by various articles that kept leading me to others & now have no time left to post.
:balling

(Y'all stop cheering - I'll be back some time after church so it's just temporary!)
:mrgreen:
Grace,Too


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 7:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
Southern Doc wrote:
jdbrown wrote:
Justgrace, I think I should apologize, I didn't mean to hijack your thread and turn it into an eschatological ping-pong contest.


Me too! :oops:

So in conclusion.

Obama is bad for Israel and a strong Israel is good for America. :)


Aw, friends, what else have we to do just now in the days of our grief over our leader (Huckabee) being out of the Presidential race?

Actually, I have learned a lot reading your comments. Where else could we so amicably drift into theology while discussing the powers of the world and the policies of the United States? And still respect each other as we do on Huck's Army?

We may disagree on the details of eschatology, mostly because we will really only know exactly how it turns out after it's all over with. So, in heaven we can discuss more of the "Aha's...that's how this all fits together!"

But I think we can agree with Southern Doc's conclusion that "Obama is bad for Israel, and a strong Israel is good for America."



Post by justgrace has received Likes: 3 jdbrown, maryjthom, QuoVadisAnima
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Support Israel
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 11:16 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Quote:
Your explaination of why the jews might need to have been warned in the A.D. 90 timeframe is, I dunno, not really as compelling as those warnings of Revelation pointing towards more dramatic end times events. By that time, if you were a jew, your life kinda stunk either way though.

There were certainly attempts by some jews to take back their land after A.D. 70, but not very successfully as you illustrated above. But with the Temple being destroyed and Jerusalem being trodden down, any jewish presence there was pretty inconsequential at that point.


Sure seemed like pretty dramatic "end time" events at the time for Jews and Jewish-Christians alike.

Here's where we are into the "weighting" of evidence. You are suggesting that the Jews and their presence in the Holy Lands was "pretty inconsequential at that point," following the First Jewish-Roman War (66-70 [73] A.D.).

On what historic basis?

In 66 A.D. a successful revolt takes place. Jerusalem and most of Judea is liberated from occupation. Independence is declared, money coined, sacrifices are offered on the Temple mount. The experience is short lived and brutally suppressed after a three year run.

After 70 A.D. Jerusalem still existed as "Jerusalem." Jews could still live in the city and represented the majority.

The land itself was still labeled Judea by the Romans.

This was in recognition that its population was still overwhelmingly Jewish. The First Jewish-Roman War (66-73) focused almost exclusively on the city of Jerusalem itself and spared most Jewish towns and settlements.

The Temple had been destroyed but Judaism continued in the land.

Quote:
any jewish presence there was pretty inconsequential at that point


Well it seemed pretty consequential to the Romans when...

In 132-35 A.D. a successful revolt takes place. Jerusalem and most of Judea is liberated from occupation. Independence is declared, money coined, sacrifices are offered on the Temple mount. The experience is short lived and brutally suppressed after a three year run.

Sound familiar? It did to the Romans except this time it cost more of their own blood and treasure to suppress. Soooo...down came the hammer.

After 135 A.D. "Jerusalem" no long exists replaced by Aelia Capitolina. Jews are forbidden from the city and a colonization and settlement policy is put in place by the Romans. Jews would later be allowed back in but only after they were a distinctly powerless and cowed minority.

The land is no longer labeled "Judea" but now Palestine. The Romans make this true in fact and not merely name by destroying and razing to the ground 50 fortified Jewish towns and 985 Jewish villages ending the majority status of Jews in the Holy Lands.

The Temple Mount and entire city of Aelia Capitolina can no longer be accessed except to "wail" one day a year. Even synagogue worship is all but obliterated with the loss of Jewish towns and villages. The center of Jewish religious leadership and population shifted to Persia. Judaism in the Holy Lands then indeed becomes pretty inconsequential at that point. As is evidenced by this being the end of any Jewish state in the Holy Lands until 1948. {only 7.6% of the region was Jewish in 1914}

Quote:
There were certainly attempts by some jews to take back their land after A.D. 70, but not very successfully as you illustrated above.


Both revolts were equally "successful." Both were consequential. Historically the first was devastating and the second decisive. It's not unlike our own Civil War. The failure of Lee's First Maryland Campaign (1862) at Antietam is really the end of any realistic chance for Southern victory in the war. But it is the failure of Lee's Second Maryland Campaign (1863) at Gettysburg that finally punctures Southern hope for victory. Antietam was devastating, Gettysburg decisive.

There is reason behind the characterization of the 66 A.D. revolt as the FIRST Jewish-Roman War. Not the "Last." There is also a reason why events after Kokhbah in 135 A.D. (revolts in Galilee in the 4th cent; revolts by Samaritans in the 5th; and a Persian led proxy revolt in the 7th) are not elevated to the status of "War" and are not particularly "Jewish."

The "Jewish-Roman Wars" as an historic epic go from 66-135 (not just 70 A.D. or 73 A.D.). Some of this tendency to think 73 is the elevation of Masada in the last 60 years in the National Myth of modern Israel and especially the Israeli Army. The wide popular knowledge of Josephus and his history of the "The" Jewish War is another factor in what took hold as common "informed" knowledge {he died in 100 A.D. and therefore wrote of the 66-73 conflict as if it were the ONLY one not unlike someone writing in 1930 might write of "The" World War. Well it wasn't, but his History of the Jewish War is the limit of most folks exposure to ancient documents concerning Jews, Romans, and War}. It’s like ending the whole "Texas-Mexico" conflict at the Alamo. {which Texans would be even more focused on IF they'd lost San Jacinto or the U.S. had been defeated in 1845-46 against Mexico but had come back and won in 1945-46} I "get it" from the stand point of why modern Israel would want to "never forget" this way but it violates the actual historic narrative.

In fact the only really serious discussion among historians is whether to count the Kitos War (115-117 A.D.), in which diaporan Jews rose up throughout the Eastern Roman Empire and killed between 200,000 and 400,000 Roman colonialists and allies before being crushed along with much of diasporan organized Judaism, as a "War." Body counts and societal destruction like this didn't seem minor to the Romans and historians of the day nor to those since (especially Jewish historians who consider Kitos the "Second War" and the "Third" War [Kokhbah - 135 A.D.] as the climatic tragedy.

Together these three wars: First Jewish-Roman War (66-70); "Second Jewish- Roman War" (115-117); and "Third" or "Last" Jewish-Roman War (132-135), provide an ample historic framework upon which to explain much if not all of the Apocalyptic imagery of Revelation.

It is most certainly true that the Jewish community that survived in exile, especially those in Persia, considered these events as a complete and linked narrative of national destruction.

It is also historically known that the Jewish-Christian/Christian community stood aloof of these conflicts and did not generally participate. This allowed them to both survive and to increasingly be seen as a distinct faith and "non-Jewish" by the Romans (for better and worse). It must have been exquisitely difficult for the Jewish-Christian community, still unsure of the balance between their Jewish and Christian identity {as evidenced by the extensive writings of Paul and the Hebrew writer to explain the balance} to stand by as their kinsmen revolted and were crushed not once but thrice over a two generation period.

It sure would have been helpful if God had given them some sort of guide, like he did the exiles in Babylon through Daniel, to give them assurance that they were doing the right thing and that all these things, were in accord with His plans. :wink: Man...that would be something I could still relate to and be blessed by even if it wasn't going to tell me what's going to happen geo-politically 2,000 years later! Just like so much of the fulfilled prophesy of Christ in the New Testament found in the Old. :D

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY