Exodus 15 Prophetic Song of Moses

reply to post by jmdewey60

"Most modern scholars choose between a preterist and an idealist reading of revelation."

So what? Majority rules doesn't make truth. Secondly, what is the footnote for that statement? Where does the man get the information from? Is it just prejudicial arbitrary conjecture of his? Lastly, the man should be ashamed of using a fallacy of logic with his statement. It's called "Argumentum Ad Populum", or appeal to numbers fallacy.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Argumentum Ad Populum

70% of the denominational churches in America are amillenialist, doesn't mean they are correct, it means it's something protestants didn't shed from the Roman Catholic Church. The reformers did a great job with Soteriology but never questioned the conclusions of Augustine in regards to their Eschatology. I always suggest people find a non-denominational church, one that has no governing regional or national body over it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The 20th century has shown us painfully that we have not yet endured the Great Tribulation. The holocaust took one out of every three Jews. Some OT passages indicate the Great Tribulation will take 2 out of every 3 Jews, as well as half the world's population.

What "the Great Tribulation"?

The great tribulation Jesus spoke of in Matt. 24:21. He said it.

One "the Great Tribulation" is one where people are seen by John the Revelator having gone through it, showing up in heaven, and there are people spoken of as having been killed in a Great Tribulation.

Yes, John was taken "in the spirit" to see the events. He was "taken" briefly for a glimpse of the future.

Having some Jews in Germany and Poland killed is rather par for the course as the sort of thing that happened to Jews since 70 AD, which was the singular event which lowered their prestige in order to be treated so meanly ever afterwards.

No, perhaps as many as a million Jews died in 70 AD, as many as 6 million died in WW2. But even the holocaust wasn't the great tribulation, nor was 70 AD. That time is still coming. Jesus pronounced national "blindness" on the Jews when He was preparing to ride the donkey into Jerusalem. And Paul says that that "blindness" isn't forever, but "until the fullness of the gentiles be come in".

Jesus pronouncing spiritual "blindness" and destruction of Jerusalem:

"Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, you shall not see me, until the time comes when you shall say, Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord." ~ Luke 13:35


Which echoes what He said through the prophet Hosea in 5:15:

"I will go away and return to My place Until they acknowledge their guilt and seek My face; In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me." ~ Hosea 5:15


Btw, how can God "return" to His place unless He left it? That's Christ speaking through the prophet Hosea.



"Their affliction" of Hosea 5:15 refers directly to the great tribulation Jesus mentioned in Matt. 24:21.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . the man should be ashamed of using a fallacy of logic with his statement.

[color=DarkSlateGray]..If anyone is "guilty" of anything, it would be me. I pulled one sentence out of Timothy T. Weber's essay to quote. As I earlier mentioned, the book is on Historic Premillennialism, as opposed to the newer version of premillennialism which would be dispensationalism that was inverted by Darby in the latter nineteenth century. There is only one paragraph on preterism and the book in no way defends it or even considers it as an option, instead, it is explaining what "real" premillennialism was before it got ruined by the harebrained schemes of Darby and his successors.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Weber is a historian of religion specializing in eschatological beliefs, and so was given the fist position for his essay, in this book which is a collection of essays coming from a conference on biblical studies with that one year's meeting focused on the topic of premillennialism. So Weber sort of mentioned preterism in passing, as he was going along in his discourse, what scholars think, as a way of dismissing that and going to the central thrust of the essay which was what is accepted by the general masses of church-goers. As for what value Weber's opinion is, he is a respected scholar and is not biased and actually is not trying to support any particular version of eschatology and was brought in for his expertise in the straight history of where all these different beliefs came from. Being a noted and respected scholar himself, he would know a lot or at least read a lot of scholars and would know what their personal views were, and as mentioned by me, most would be preterists and most of those not preterists would be idealists. Weber explains idealism as thinking of Revelation as being like a play, where it explains the believer's experience, which is very similar to the conclusion that I came up with on my own, that the slaughtered lamb is the believer and what he has to go through in life as a Christian.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Now my point is to say something like, the more someone actually knows about the Bible, the less inclined they are to believe in something so contrived as what dispensationalism presents, which is as another scholar says (in a different book I recently bought), can only be supported by taking every verse used to support it, completely out of context. As the reverse of that, the more ignorant, and even not even reading the Bible at all, or maybe not even being a Christian, the person is, the more inclined the person is to accept the sort of nonsense as presented by dispensationalists.

reply to post by jmdewey60

inclined the person is to accept the sort of nonsense as presented by dispensationalists.

Oh, it's "nonsense"? Gotcha. Answer me this, if Christ was not a "dispensationalist", then why did He pronounce temporary spiritual blindness on the nation of Israel? Why didn't He make their blindness eternal? He never should have said "until" if He really meant that they would forever be blind and castaways.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

No, perhaps as many as a million Jews died in 70 AD, as many as 6 million died in WW2. But even the holocaust wasn't the great tribulation, nor was 70 AD.

In Germany they put people in prison for saying there were not six million Jews killed by the National Worker's Party around WW II. Germany is an occupied state, ever since the end of WW II, and America still runs things there, though of course you never hear about that on main stream media. So, America being basically run by Zionists, keeps a clamp on free speech in Germany (not a free country) against anyone refuting the Zionist claims of a "holocaust".
The fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD proportion wise would be greater even than the inflated number given by the Zionist, and so is GREAT. So it was a GREAT TRIBULATION of the Jews that happened in 70 AD, which caused a suffering, as Jesus said, the likes of is still not know afterwards. Why would Jesus say "afterwards" unless there were other sufferings to happen afterwards to compare against that particular suffering Jesus was clearly talking about?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Why would Jesus say "afterwards" unless there were other sufferings to happen afterwards to compare against that particular suffering Jesus was clearly talking about?

Do you not at all feel awkward asking me questions when there are several here in this thread from me that you've ignored post after post? Is that normal for you? Expecting others to answer your demands, yet feel exempt from answering other's question asked of you?

Would it be possible to get my Qs answered (7 of them) before responding to yet another question from you?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Do you not at all feel awkward asking me questions . . .

No because it is the same question I asked yesterday.
Now you are back to playing guessing game where I am supposed to figure out what those seven questions were I was supposed to answer.
At least I have the decency to restate the question so you know it is a question and that I want an answer, something you always refuse to do. I pains me physically to type but I do it anyway. How about you, are your fingers broken?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Do you not at all feel awkward asking me questions . . .

Now you are back to playing guessing game where I am supposed to figure out what those seven questions were I was supposed to answer.

It might be a guessing game for you, if it were me I'd look for the question marks.

At least I have the decency to restate the question so you know it is a question and that I want an answer, something you always refuse to do. I pains me physically to type but I do it anyway. How about you, are your fingers broken?

Most of the time I'm simply flippant with you because I know what I'm going to get. You have the logic of a sack of hammers. You extol Biblical scholars and textual critics more than Christ Jesus. I mean in this thread alone I confronted you with a statement from Jesus and you're response appealed to a Biblical scholar. You're usually posting an anti-theology against someone here, or some doctrine of Christianity instead of posts that are about a pro-theology of Jesus. I've seen it time and time again, and frankly I just don't have the patience most of the time to put up with it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It's not anti-theology.
It's anti-crazy theories by some dude in the eighteen hundreds to wanted to be a prophet and apparently had financial backing to propagate his message, and I mean a LOT of money, from someone and my guess is some people with an agenda, one that we are sadly reaping the fruit of today, as in the curse on the land which is the so-called "state" of Israel.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's not anti-theology.

I said "an anti-theology against someone here". Dudes from the 1800s are not here, they're dead.

reply to post by jmdewey60



Germany is an occupied state? You mean because the American military installations are there because of a diplomatic contract means it is occupied? Where did you get that from?

Do you even know why Ramstein Air Base is there in the first place? It is a fueling point for aircraft in the defense against Islamic states. Really, how little do you really know about history? Let me go find something from all the German chancellors since WW2 and see if that statement is made. Angela Merkel does not say it at all, so where did you get the idea that we are occupying Germany.

If the fact that the US has military bases in another country means it is occupying, then we must also be occupying the UK, Iceland, Greenland, France, Japan, and a host of other countries. Wow, what an incorrect statement you made.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, perhaps as many as a million Jews died in 70 AD, as many as 6 million died in WW2. But even the holocaust wasn't the great tribulation, nor was 70 AD.

In Germany they put people in prison for saying there were not six million Jews killed by the National Worker's Party around WW II. Germany is an occupied state, ever since the end of WW II, and America still runs things there, though of course you never hear about that on main stream media. So, America being basically run by Zionists, keeps a clamp on free speech in Germany (not a free country) against anyone refuting the Zionist claims of a "holocaust".
The fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD proportion wise would be greater even than the inflated number given by the Zionist, and so is GREAT. So it was a GREAT TRIBULATION of the Jews that happened in 70 AD, which caused a suffering, as Jesus said, the likes of is still not know afterwards. Why would Jesus say "afterwards" unless there were other sufferings to happen afterwards to compare against that particular suffering Jesus was clearly talking about?

edit on 5-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Awww, you must have read the book The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. And you must have believed it, you must be a Henry Ford fan. Zionism indeed, get some proof other than youtube videos and Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones.

People really like to grasp invisible straws out of thin air, while ignoring history.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Do you even know why Ramstein Air Base is there in the first place? It is a fueling point for aircraft in the defense against Islamic states.

This sounds like to me a really a brain-washed explanation.
I don't remember WW II being against the Muslims.