Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Dagda · 12-23-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Very deceptive and yet ineffective.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

It's still perfectly valid given the return of Israel and what had to happen, to say Israel is not the second Israeli state in terms of the second coming. Even to Jews where it would be the first.

sugarhitman · 12-23-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Rapture of the "Church" seems to be the result of Replacement Theology which incorrectly believes that the Church is separate from the nation of Israel which is not true. This is why certain church leaders predicted that Jesus was returning in a few years or days when Israel was no longer a nation. The OT prophecies and Revelations and even Jesus himself says that he returns during a time when Israel would be attacked by the Gentiles or nations. The Rapture cannot take place without Israel existing....because Israel IS THE CHURCH.

Please be advised that Israel does not exist in accordance with God's promise that he would give Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan as an everlasting covenant. History does not show that Jews have ever occupied all of the land of Canaan, or even close to all of the land of Canaan, and history certainly does not show that the covenant is everlasting since it has never begun. It can't begin until Jews occupy all of the land of Canaan. That has never happened, at least as far as we know, and there are not any good reasons for anyone to believe that it ever will happen.

Now when do you suppose Jews will occupy all of the land of Canaan, and that their occupation will be everlasting, possibly a few weeks before Jesus returns to earth?

how I hate repeating to a repeater. That question has been answered so many times and yet the repeats continue. Just say you don't agree and move on otherwise repeating, repeating and repeating hints at craziness.

bacht · 12-23-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lycanthrope

Hi all,

My church which follows a protestant doctrines believes strongly in the rapture which is supposedly the Lord coming back on earth to recieve up his believers in the air. After which the earth will be engulfed in hardship and death on an unimaginable scale (great tribulation). There are variations of this belief some say the rapture occurs after the tribulations, some say before.

Personally, I feel that there is something terribly wrong with this doctrine which I cant put my finger on but I think Sam Harris has the same ideas as me in which he stated in his book Letters to A Christian Nation "Is is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the US government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious..."

For those who are well skilled in the doctrine of the rapture, what do you think of it? A case of wishful thinking? Or anachronism?

According to the NT, John the Baptist was prophesying the end of the world. After John, 1st C Christians like Paul and John of Patmos were expecting the Parousia (Rapture) in their lifetime. When Christ didn't appear as hoped, the believers had to modify the eschatology, which is how it's been ever since.

The gospels preserve differing views of the Kingdom of Heaven, ranging from imminent apocalypse to realized eschatology.

sugarhitman · 12-23-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by lycanthrope

Hi all,

My church which follows a protestant doctrines believes strongly in the rapture which is supposedly the Lord coming back on earth to recieve up his believers in the air. After which the earth will be engulfed in hardship and death on an unimaginable scale (great tribulation). There are variations of this belief some say the rapture occurs after the tribulations, some say before.

Personally, I feel that there is something terribly wrong with this doctrine which I cant put my finger on but I think Sam Harris has the same ideas as me in which he stated in his book Letters to A Christian Nation "Is is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the US government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious..."

For those who are well skilled in the doctrine of the rapture, what do you think of it? A case of wishful thinking? Or anachronism?

According to the NT, John the Baptist was prophesying the end of the world. After John, 1st C Christians like Paul and John of Patmos were expecting the Parousia (Rapture) in their lifetime. When Christ didn't appear as hoped, the believers had to modify the eschatology, which is how it's been ever since.

The gospels preserve differing views of the Kingdom of Heaven, ranging from imminent apocalypse to realized eschatology.

Wrong! Expecting and knowing the day and hour are two different things. Paul made it clear that Christ would not come until after the rise of "The Man of Sin" the Beast. The arch enemy of Christ and Israel.

Those "christians" who predicted Jesus coming while Israel was not a nation were simply wrong. The OT and Revelations both say that the Messiah returns to Israel and rules from there.

Also Israel's repentance and Christ coming are related for Jesus himself said: "You shall not see me again UNTIL you say 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" which agrees with the OT that The Messiah and Israel's repentance are related....in fact Christ's return is dependent on Israel's repentance. That will occur during Aremegeddon or the Gog Magog war.

This belief that Christ will make a separate trip for the Gentile church is found nowhere in scripture. He comes once....he comes for Israel that INCLUDES Gentile believers and not the other way around.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-24-2008, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

This belief that Christ will make a separate trip for the Gentile church is found nowhere in scripture. He comes once....he comes for Israel that INCLUDES Gentile believers and not the other way around.

It doesn't matter since the Bible is not a trustworthy source of information. All that you are talking about is interpretation. What is most important is facts, not interpretation. Either Jesus will return to earth or he won't. It is reasonable to assume that he won't.

Deus Ex · 12-24-2008, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Wrong! Expecting and knowing the day and hour are two different things. Paul made it clear that Christ would not come until after the rise of "The Man of Sin" the Beast. The arch enemy of Christ and Israel.

You get that idea from 2 Thessalonians which was not even written by Paul. Even if the 'true' Paul wrote it, who cares? Paul was just a man with an opinion.

Clivedurdle · 12-24-2008, 07:14 AM

As a former four square gospeller I must note that all the other interpretations are of Satan.

Isn't this subject an area of extensive academic debate? Around 1000 Ad there were big end of the world beliefs, many groups through the centuries and the modern example of everyone's reaction to 2000

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4738870.ece

DCHindley · 12-24-2008, 09:37 AM

Yes ... we're seeing a little of that here on this thread.

I think this underscores the importance that the creation of the modern nation of Israel, in spite of some pretty serious odds, has had on the development of modern millennial interpretations of biblical passages. Until 1947, I would speculate that the holy land's role in millennial prophecy was limited to being the location for the battle of Armageddon.

Once the shock of the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland wore off, many protestant Christians who had previously not been too fond of Jews, saw that the new nation's Arab foes were aligning themselves with the Godless Communists of the USSR, who they already vilified (by now we are in the McCarthy era).

In consequence, they were pretty much forced to re-interpret their traditional views to accommodate this new change in religio-political relationships, and most decided that Jews did have a place God's millennial plans in the form of a formal Jewish state.

A funny thing about this is that although they threw their full support towards Israel, if you check the specifics of their end-times doctrines you'll find that most still felt that Jews who get to heaven must first recognize Jesus as their messiah.

While some US Jews welcomed that support, others (especially in Israel itself) resented the implication that the support was given to support Christian expectations about end times that involved WW3 occurring right on their soil and which at best assumed some Jews would convert to Christianity in the process!

I am curious how this idea has developed since the collapse of the USSR.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

As a former four square gospeller I must note that all the other interpretations are of Satan.

Isn't this subject an area of extensive academic debate? Around 1000 Ad there were big end of the world beliefs, many groups through the centuries and the modern example of everyone's reaction to 2000

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4738870.ece

lycanthrope · 12-25-2008, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you checked the sources above?

Barbara Rossing's book is on google books, and there is a youtube interview with her here

Hi toto

Nope, I havent got the chance to check it out now..as for now my computer is down and I am posting from a friend's computer and I will be out till like 2-3 Jan. In the mean time i appreciate all opinions and feedbacks on my questions

Merry X'mas and a Happy new year everyone

sugarhitman · 12-25-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Yes ... we're seeing a little of that here on this thread.

I think this underscores the importance that the creation of the modern nation of Israel, in spite of some pretty serious odds, has had on the development of modern millennial interpretations of biblical passages. Until 1947, I would speculate that the holy land's role in millennial prophecy was limited to being the location for the battle of Armageddon.

Once the shock of the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland wore off, many protestant Christians who had previously not been too fond of Jews, saw that the new nation's Arab foes were aligning themselves with the Godless Communists of the USSR, who they already vilified (by now we are in the McCarthy era).

In consequence, they were pretty much forced to re-interpret their traditional views to accommodate this new change in religio-political relationships, and most decided that Jews did have a place God's millennial plans in the form of a formal Jewish state.

A funny thing about this is that although they threw their full support towards Israel, if you check the specifics of their end-times doctrines you'll find that most still felt that Jews who get to heaven must first recognize Jesus as their messiah.

While some US Jews welcomed that support, others (especially in Israel itself) resented the implication that the support was given to support Christian expectations about end times that involved WW3 occurring right on their soil and which at best assumed some Jews would convert to Christianity in the process!

I am curious how this idea has developed since the collapse of the USSR.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

As a former four square gospeller I must note that all the other interpretations are of Satan.

Isn't this subject an area of extensive academic debate? Around 1000 Ad there were big end of the world beliefs, many groups through the centuries and the modern example of everyone's reaction to 2000

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4738870.ece

Prophecies without Israel were due to Replacement Theology which believes that God is finished with Israel. Such a view is not supported by scripture in fact it is disproved by them. Israel is central to biblical prophecy.

Also the USSR prophecy is flawed as well because the OT and NT points to a conflict between Jews and ALL Gentile nations i.e. a Global confederacy vs Israel over Jerusalem and land.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-24-2008, 07:14 AM	#37
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	As a former four square gospeller I must note that all the other interpretations are of Satan. Isn't this subject an area of extensive academic debate? Around 1000 Ad there were big end of the world beliefs, many groups through the centuries and the modern example of everyone's reaction to 2000 http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle4738870.ece

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.