They do not deserve a *State*

And now back to the POLITICAL topic of the thread:

Do you think the Palestinians deserve a state? Would you like to see the Jews and Palestinians live side by side in peace one day?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I'm wondering because I consider myself to be somewhat of a partial preterist, and I tend toward premillennialism more than the other options.

 

Yes and Yes

 

That's not true, LE. My main disagreement is with your Darbyism, not every point of eschatology that I don't agree with.

I think that all of us are in error on some theological subject because not one of us is perfect.

 

If you looked at history alone regardless of your eschatological views you would have to say evidence is against the arabs and the israelies ever getting along. What is Pres. Bush gonna do that nobodyelse has tried?
There will never be "true" peace in Israel until the Prince of Peace returns at the end of the trib.
For me personally, I don't even have to involve my eschatological view. If you put that aside and just look at the promises to Israel in the OT you just can't believe there will be a state between the two.
Israel was basically promised three things in the Abrahamic covenant. Land, seed, and a blessing.
I just cannot spiritualize the scriptures that make the promise of land to the Israelites. Its all in the OT. Friends that land is the Israelites land make no bones about it. Whether you choose to believe it or not. They believe it whole heartedly and the Torah backs them up.

If its not the Israelites land then whose is it?
What does Scripture mean when it talks about the land? Somebody educate this hillbilly? I just read the Bible and when it says the land is Israels'. I just take it for what it says. What is the "deeper" "hidden" meaning behind that promise?

I know we should back Israel to the hilt. Its what the Bible teaches. Its one thing when nations turn against her. Its another when doctrine such as the preterist view begins to turn the minds of christians against her.
If anybody has questions concerning the preterist view what I just mentioned should give you a clue that it is not a healthy view. It weakens the christians view toward proctecting Israel. How can it not if according to the preterist view most of what concerns Israel has already taken place?
I find it interesting that this view has began to take on momentum during the kind of times we live in.

 

I, too, think we should support a fellow democracy in the Middle East, Israel. But I do not do so based on any theology or eschatology or for any reason that I would base on a particular interpretation of the Bible, but on our shared values for freedom and democracy.

 

You just involved your eschatological view immediately after saying you were putting it aside.

 

Actually Ken I caught that myself. I was just to lazy to phrase it different. I was curious if anyone would pick it up? You da man!

According to a previous post you kinda indicated that premill, pretrib was a false teaching. That is a little strong don't ya think?

I confess I was trained at a pre-mill, pre-trib school. Our professors never considered those who hold the amill or post mill position to be false teaching. They just emphasized the fact that you have more spiritualization involved of Scripture involved with those views.Those views were never considered false teaching.
I understand that the debate is now on concerning the timeline of when the idea of the rapture was introduced to the Church. There are some good arguments for very early dates. I'm not all that concerned personally because for me it is settled.

 

Yes, I think you are correct.

I will refrain from doing so in the future.

 

I, too, think we should support a fellow democracy in the Middle East, Israel. But I do not do so based on any theology or eschatology or for any reason that I would base on a particular interpretation of the Bible, but on our shared values for freedom and democracy. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly

 

When Jesus Christ returns it will be to cast Satan into the Lake of Fire [Revelation20:10], to judge the quick and the dead [2 Timothy 4:1; 1 Peter 4:5] from the Great White Throne [Revelation 20:11-15], and to establish His Eternal Kingdom in the New Heavens and New Earth [Revelation 21, 22].

 

This is nonsense, and I do take Rev. literally. I have no idea what Darbianism is. </font>[/QUOTE]If you have no idea what Dabianism is you have paid no attention to the long history of how Revelation has been interepreted. So how do you know if you are interpreting revelation literally or not?

To take Revelation literally means to believe the seven Churches in the letter are literally seven churches, not seven ages of future church history. To take Revelation literally means to believe in a literal dragon rising vrom the sea, a literal beast with ten heads, and so forth. Just like Genesis chapter three with real talking snakes ands magic fruit.

GET IT? If not I will be glad to explain the idiocy of Fundamentalism to ypou or any body else with a working brain.

 

We do. There will be on peace on earth until the 1000 year LITERAL reign of Jesus Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]No you don't. In Revelation you make room for massive allegory and symbolism. In Genesis you do not, insisting on literal talking snakes and magic fruit. Your inconsistencies are the joke of the enlightened world, which includes Christians who are not afraid to be educated regarding the historical nature of biblical literature. Fundies are in a world of their own, totally out of touch with the real Gospel as it relates to real people and real issues, good only for the meaningless talk that occurs every day on this boad.

 

David White 3,
Everytime you post on this board it is something said in a very angry tone. Are you convicted about something? Do you take pleasure in taking potshots at the Bible? Whats up?

"He is about God becoming human in order to show us how to be human."

Thats the most weird statement of faith I've ever read. What does it mean? It sure doens't sound like a personal statement of faith.

Why don't you enlighten us "fundies" with what the real Gospel is. In my opinion according to your statement of faith on your profile you don't know yourself what the real Gospel is. However go ahead and explain it to me just what the real Gospel is. How does a person become a christian? Maybe you can share your personal testimony.That is always a good way to relate the "real Gospel" to "real people.

 

Maybe you should re-read the Gospels and focus on the "word in red" and then you might have an understanding of why I and many others find you to be out of sinc with Jesus.

I give you one verse to start. "And the Word became Flesh..." The Gospel is about God becoming human so we can learn to be human as God created humans to be. Have you ever read John? Have you ever read Hebrews? Have you ever read the New Testament? Your response to my posts only indicates to me that you do not understand Jesus, and therefore do not know God.

 

DavidFWhite3 said:
If you have no idea what Dabianism is you have paid no attention to the long history of how Revelation has been interepreted. So how do you know if you are interpreting revelation literally or not?

==Dabianism? You mean Darby? Darby is not the issue. This debate would rage with or without Darby, and historically others have held his views. Darby is not the issue, Darby is a scapegoat. The issue is simple: What is the proper hermenuetic for Revelation? Should we understand Revelation "plainly", as the pre-millennial brothers do, or do we understand it "figuratively" as our a-millennial brothers do?

Revelation has many symbols (etc) within it. However these symbols are usually easily understood by a look at the context of the symbol or the Old Testament teaching on future events (Old Testament Eschatology). Either one will choose to go the plain route, or the figurative route. The early church, it is easily provable, went with the more plain (or literal) route. Thus they were usually pre-millennial. It was sometime later that a less than literal/plain route was favored (and thus the rise of a-millennialism and preterism). Personally I favor a more plain or literal understanding of Revelation. What does that mean? That means I allow the text to determine what is symbol, literal, etc. Unless the text directly indicates a figurative meaning I allow it to have a plain or literal meaning. Those things which are symbol are symbols for literal places, people, or events. This fits with the way the Old Testament prophecies that used symbols were fulfilled. To find out what a symbol stands for we look at the context of the verse, Revelation, and Old Testament prophecy. Usually in that mix we find the answer. If we cannot find a answer we leave it alone (ie..say I don't know). Going any further than that is dangerous.
___________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
To take Revelation literally means to believe the seven Churches in the letter are literally seven churches, not seven ages of future church history.

==There is no textual or historical reason to deny that these churches were real churches whom John wrote. Jesus Himself said that these churches were literal (Rev 1:11). Historically we know they were in what is today Turkey. John wrote his letter to these seven churches. On the other hand there is no textual or solid historical reason for understanding these churches as "seven ages of future church history". That approach seems to be highly subjective.
_________________________________

DavidFWhite3 said:
To take Revelation literally means to believe in a literal dragon rising vrom the sea,

==The dragon, according to the text, is a symbol for satan. Revelation 12:9 states, "and the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who decieves the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth and his angels were thrown down with him". This is a great example of how to understand the symbols. We look to the context (immediant and broader) of the verse, and the Old Testament prophecies.
______________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
a literal beast with ten heads, and so forth.

==This is clearly symbolic language. However we are not free to invent our personal understandings (2Pet 1:20-21). The answer to this symbol is found in Revelation 13 and Daniel 7:19-21. Those who study the text plainly will understand the prophecy.
________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Just like Genesis chapter three with real talking snakes ands magic fruit.

==There is nothing in Genesis about magic fruit. The issue was obedience of the man not the fruit. That is clear from just reading the text. As for the snake there is no textual reason to deny that there was a snake. Revelation 12:9 and Genesis 3:14-15 may indicate that the snake was either the devil himself taking the form of a snake, or, the devil taking control of a snake (demonic possession). Either would fit the text and would also explain why the snake could speak.
________________________________

DavidFWhite3 said:
the idiocy of Fundamentalism

==Why be a Christian if one is not a fundamentalist? A fundamentalist is one who holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Apart from those fundamentals there is no rational reason to be a Christian. The fundamentals are a must. Therefore to be a Christian one must be a fundamentalist.
_________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
In Revelation you make room for massive allegory and symbolism. In Genesis you do not, insisting on literal talking snakes and magic fruit. Your inconsistencies are the joke of the enlightened world,

==Genesis is narrative history, Revelation is prophecy or apocalyptic language. That is they are two different types of literary genre. Thus one must understand each as it was meant to be understood (exegesis) and not try to invent ones own meaning (eisegesis). As for the so-called "enlightened world" ? They are not the answer. The answer to prophecy and God's revelation will not be found in people who, in general, reject the very existence of God. In large part they are the scoffers and mockers that Scripture warns about (Ps 1:1, 2Pet 3:3-9).
________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
which includes Christians who are not afraid to be educated regarding the historical nature of biblical literature

==Well that would include me. I am very educated in the historical nature of Biblical literature. However since you seem wish to group Genesis and Revelation into the same pot I have to wonder about your understanding of literary genre and the genre of those two books. On that your general hermeneutic seems rather weak (needing futher explanation), and your style overly harsh and abrasive. Educated people should be able to discuss differences with educated language and not overly abrasive language. Beyond that Christians are to be kind to one another (Eph 4:32, 1Cor 13:4) even we there are disagreements on some issues. Nobody will be damned to hell because they are pre-millennial, a-millennial, preterist, pre-trib, post-trib, or those type issues. People are condemned for rejecting the Gospel and unbelief. Godly Christians have disagreed on these issues and will continue to do so. Therefore Christians, educated Christians as well, should seek to debate/discuss these issues with Christian love and kindness. Apart from that attitude all we are doing is creating unnecessary splits and anger. Debate is good but among Christians the debate should never be hostile. Christians should debate these issues with a Christian attitude.
________________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Fundies are in a world of their own, totally out of touch with the real Gospel as it relates to real people and real issues, good only for the meaningless talk that occurs every day on this boad.

==How do you define the "real Gospel"?

Btw, escape from hell and condemnation is very much in touch with people's lives.
_______________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Maybe you should re-read the Gospels and focus on the "word in red" and then you might have an understanding of why I and many others find you to be out of sinc with Jesus.

==The Words in red are Scripture just like the Words in black. That is why I am opposed to red-letter Bibles, they only serve to confuse people. In fact, in certain places, scholars debate what words should be red and what words should be black. You find others to be "out of sinc with Jesus", ok...why?
__________________________________

DavidFWhite3 said:
The Gospel is about God becoming human so we can learn to be human as God created humans to be

==Interesting. I would not totally disagree with that in a general sense (God created man in a sinless state in full relationship with Him and the final goal of salvation is restoration to that condition through Christ). However I fear you are going to restrict the Gospel to that (though I could be wrong). The Gospel, as Jesus explained it, saves people from sin and hell (ie..gives people a spiritual re-birth). See John 3. The Gospel is about a person's relationship with God. Now that will affect how he/she treats other people, but the Gospel is really God focused (ie...a person's relationship with God).
____________________________

DavidFWhite3 said:
Have you ever read John? Have you ever read Hebrews? Have you ever read the New Testament?

==I have read and studied, in detail, all of the New Testament. Have you? Reading is nice but we need a careful detailed study of the text (w/out reading our modern views and opinions into the text).
_________________________
DavidFWhite3 said:
Sory folks but no rapture, no 7 year tribulation. It's all fiction

==You will have a hard time supporting that with Scripture.
The term rapture is not found in Scripture, but the term from which the term rapture comes is. In 1Thessalonians 4:17 Pauls says that believers alive at the time of the coming of Christ will be "caught up" to meet the Lord in the air. The phrase "caught up" is where the term rapture comes from. So there will be a catching up of believers, a rapture, according to Scripture. Now will that be pre or post tribulation? I believe it will be pre-tribulational but I leave open the chance that it could be post. However, pre or post, there will be a rapture. That cannot be denied without denying Scripture.
As for the tribulation, Jesus said there would be a great tribulation (Matt 24:21). This agrees with Old Testament prophecy about the end of the age, and it agrees with the general outline of Revelation (chpts 6-19). The length of the tribulation is a subject of debate. If we look through history we see some who put it at about 3 (and a half) years and others who put it at seven (based on Daniel's weeks). I would put it at seven years based on the weeks in Daniel and Revelation. According to Scripture there will be a tribulation (Matt 24:21-22,29, Dan 12:1, Rev 6-19).

In Christ,
Martin.

 

Amen!

Even so Come Lord Jesus! \0/

 

Bumped for JB

 

i believe the word rapture is in the bible, the latine vulgate, it uses the word "rapturo" (i think that is how it is spelled) which is where we get the latin based word, rapture.


i read that somewhere, anyone else ever heard this?

thankyou and God Bless