Firstly, Hagee's end time theology seems to be the focus of alot of his sermons, he likes to look at the crisis's in the middle east and point out how they fit in with prophecy in Revelations, and really, I don't see much problem with that. Sometimes I feel he focus's on it a bit too much to the detriment of really evangelizing to listeners, but TBN mostly recycles the same sermons by him alot, I could be missing some of the picture. I don't think Hagee is trying to say the Bible explicitly commands the U.S. in particular to aid Israel, but i'm pretty sure he's following the whole "Whosoever blesses Israel, I [God] will bless" thing, which I know is in the OT somewhere, and Israel does need a whole lot of help. Now, the pre-emptive strike probably isn't the best of ideas, as most of the people in the Middle East aren't saved and thusly would go to Hell when they die, which would be a problematic end for them, finding a way to step up evangelism there without getting caught would probably be a better solution, but that's just me. If worse comes to worse, we will probably have to fight Iran one way or another :/. I don't remember Hagee saying anything about the United States fighting Iran immedietly bringing the second coming though, that'd be some crazily liberal interpretation of Revelations alright to somehow fit that in there. On the Mahdi, from what i've heard, the Mahdi of Islam has some traits which are, ah, remarkably similar to the Anti-Christ of Christianity, so I really don't think there's grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president there. I know what you mean about Kingdom Theology though, but Hagee really doesn't seem to be a Kingdom Theology kind of guy, he seems to be simply saying that all this bad stuff is going down, so it looks like the Rapture is coming pretty soon. I'm curious though, how do you find both Dispensational and premillenial end-times theology to be flawed? I don't really know if I believe either of them, (Mostly because I haven't thought about which camp i'm in much, I just sort of believe what I read in the Bible :/.) but what exactly do you believe? Homestarmy 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I believe. I fall in the postmillennial/ partial preterist camp. Jesus will return one day to end time and judge everyone, saved and unsaved. There is no "pre-tribulation rapture" or even a tribulation itself. Jesus will return and "rapture" Christians at the Second Coming, at the end of time. There is no "secret" coming of Jesus to "rapture" Christians before the Second Coming. A "rapture" before the Second Coming or a Third Coming of Christ is found nowhere in Scripture. Verses used to justify them are taken out of context or misapplied to fit a theory.
There is no literal millennium during which Jesus will rule over the Earth. That time period is purely symbolic. The millennium is only mentioned once in the Bible, in Revelation 20. Keep in mind that Revelation is a HIGHLY symbolic book and most of it is not meant to be taken literally. Think about it: if there is a literal minimum, that is a major event. So why would it not be mentioned by Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles? The millennium is taking place right now as Satan is restrained. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed from his "abyss" for the Battle of Armageddon, which itself doesn't have to be a literal battle.
Current events involving Israel and the Arab world have nothing to do with Bible prophecy. God does not work through Israel anymore and Israel is not "God's timepiece" as so many dispensationals like to say. We are all "baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12) and the plan for salvation is the same for Gentiles and Jews. Israel in 1948 was restored by an act of man, not an act of God. Geopolitical Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy. All of the Old Testament passages about blessing Israel applied to the Old Covenant and how God worked through Israel during the Old Testament. A New Covenant through Jesus Christ is now in place, and God's plan for Israel is the same as it is for us; we are saved through Jesus.
Matthew 24 is talking about events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Jesus Himself said "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." Taking that for what it says, it sounds like Jesus was talking about events that will surround the destruction of the temple by the Romans (the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus and Daniel talk about). This verse has been misapplied to mean that the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel will be the generation that sees the rapture and that the "Antichrist" will rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 38-39 is not a "Russian/Iranian" invasion of Israel. Meshech and Tubal are not Moscow and Tobolsk. Meshech and Tubal were tribes that traded with the Israelites in that day (Ezekiel 27:13). Besides, the word "Moscow" wasn't even used until 1147 ( Moscow). The word "Moscow" comes from an extinct Finnic language. So how can anyone make an idenfitication from the ancient Hebrew to a word that was first used 1700 years later? Notice in Ezekiel 38 it talks about this army fighting with bucklers, shields, and swords. No modern-day armies use these kinds of weapons. This may seem obvious, but it is worth noting because the dispensationalists pride themselves on taking Scripture literally. However, this is one of those passages they choose to take figuratively because it fits in with their theories. Why would Israel need to use the weapons of the invaders for fuel for 7 years (Eze 39:9-10)? Israel has nuclear power. Also notice that this invasion makes no references that it will occur just before or in tandem with the Second Coming. The Israelites were in captivity in Babylon at this time, so what good would a story of a 21st Century do for them? This is a passage that was intended to comfort and encourage the Israelites at that time who were in bondage in Babylon. It's important to put the entire book in context. Notice how before the prophecy against Gog and Magog is talked about there are prophecies against Ammon (Ezekiel 25), Moab (25), Edom (25), Philistia (25), Tyre (26), the King of Tyre (28), Egypt (29), Pharaoh (32), and Edom once again (35). Clearly, those passages applied to that day in age. So why should Ezekiel 38-39 fast forward 25 centuries later?
So what do these chapters mean? The best explanation is that this is talking about the invasion of Israel by Antiochus Ephipanes in 168 BC. Notice he says "latter days;" and this invasion occurred 4 centuries after it was first written. This "Russian invasion" is nothing more than a theory. Sure, it might happen someday (surely not anytime soon), but it won't be because it was Biblical prophesied. Besides, how likely is it that Russia will invade Israel anytime soon anyway? Israel and Iran might fight soon, but Russia fighting alongside Iran? No way.
I could go on and on and on talking about how Daniel 9:27 is not the signing of a "7-year peace treaty" by the "Antichrist" with Israel and Arab states. I've already talked about how the idea of a singular "Antichrist" who rules the world is not found anywhere in Scripture.
What I'm saying about Hagee is that encouraging a pre-emptive strike on Iran because it would fit in with suspect Bible prophecy is scary and dangerous. He makes irresponsible comments and writes irresponsible books like "Jerusalem Countdown." The first error in that book is right on the front cover: "Iran's nuclear arsenal is ready." By the best estimates, Iran won't have the capacity to make nuclear weapons until 2009-2015.
And yes, there are grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president on one point; they are looking forward to global chaos so their savior can return. Jesus will come in God's time. It is not up to us to hasten it. We are to live our lives for Jesus, evangelize and disciple the lost, and everything else will take care of itself. Hagee is out to sell books and videos by his "fire and brimstone" sermons. Hagee should be more concerned on saving people in Iran rather that dropping bombs on them to fulfill prophecy.
Now don't get me wrong, I support Israel. But not because I'm commanded to in the Bible. I support them for political, not theological, reasons. They are the lone democracy in the Middle East and we should stand behind them.
Also keep in mind that the belief in the Mahdi is a radical Shia Muslim belief. Shia Muslims are the majority in Iran, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims (85%) are Sunni. While it is scary that Iran's president sees himself to bring about the Mahdi, it would likely spark a fierce response from Sunnis who disagree with him. Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he's also smart. Can you imagine the world's response if he attacked Israel? The world would come to Israel's defense and Iran would be nailed hard at this juncture, not Iran's.
Personally, I don't think Jesus will return until the Great Commission is fulfilled. This means not just evangelism but discipleship in ALL nations. Just imagine how long it will take before this is done on a widespread scale in the Middle East and places like China. This will take a long time and is not close to happening. The millennium stands for a very long time, which is what Jesus told us to expect (Matthew 25:19). Of course Jesus could return at any time and we should be ready for it, but I can't say that I'm really expecting Him to.
If you'd like to hear more I'd be glad to keep talking with you. What do you believe? I used to believe in the premillennial theories until I began looking into them during and after the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I'm still frightened by what some people believe the Bible says about current events, but I'm learning to put those theories away because, after all, I think they are just theories.
We have sent a few more messages since we sent these...I can copy and paste those on here as well.
Prophecy discussion
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Prophecy discussion
by clinevol98 » Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:23 am
- clinevol98
- Minor League
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:45 pm
by clinevol98 » Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:51 pm
Here is the rest of our talk. Some of isn't about eschatology. We actually got into talking about how likely the premillennial scenarios are to taking place. Not only are they false, but I think their scenarios aren't close to taking place anyway. This guy (homestarmy) claims he doesn't really know which camp (pre or postmillennial) he falls into, but he seems more accepting of the premillennial beliefs.
You are exactly right when you say that premillennialists have a "conspiratorial" view of history and the future. As you read on he more or less says it's possible that the antichrist has been secretly controlling people for a while now and it's just a matter of time before he arises.
Hmm, i've never debated anything about revelations before, it's just one of those things I dunno why we can't live and let live about :/. After all, did Christ ever command us to all have the same end-times theology? :) . You've said a whole lot of things that would likely take me a very long time to examine, (Some of which I don't think I agree with, such as there being no rapture and that verse about helping Israel being cancelled) but if I may be so bold, from what i've heard from Hagee's sermons and from people who give sermons like his, i'm not sure you're hearing them correctly. You say their looking forward to chaos and death, and that Hagee want's a pre-emptive strike, but the quote from him on his article here didn't actually give an adequate reference for that, (and, therefore, I removed it) for all I know, somebody just put that there to discredit him and cited a random conference thing he went to. And none of them ever seem to want chaos and death, they just seem to want people to really realize right quick that its happening and that it will get worse, probably so that they'll go and get saved....while they still have time. Homestarmy 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
First off, I didn't say that there isn't a rapture. There is a rapture, but it doesn't occur before the tribulation. The rapture will occur at the end of time at the Second Coming. The Bible nowhere explicitly talks of a "secret" coming or "Third" coming of Jesus before the Second Coming. Also, nowhere in the New Testament are we commanded to support "God's chosen people"/Israel. God's chosen people are Christians. God does not work through Israel anymore and I don't believe we are commanded by God to support modern-day Israel. Again, I do not want you to get me wrong on this. I support Israel and they have every right to go after those who seek to destroy them. Although I do not believe that God has a very specific end times "plan" for them, He obviously remembers His relationship with them and watches over them as He does everyone else.
Of course Jesus wanted us to have the same end times theology. Division among Christians is the last thing He wants. In fact, dispensationalism and premillennialism are the "new kids on the block" when it comes to end times doctrines.
Second, have you ever visited raptureready.com and their message board? There are lots of people out there, Hagee included, who believe these events are at hand and maybe even welcome them. It is as if they believe the world is an awful place, they don't want to live on Earth anymore, and they want to escape as soon as possible. Personally, I would love to live a long life here on Earth before I die or before the Second Coming. Do you believe that all this stuff is coming soon, because we very well could be here another 1,000 years.
They are very anxious for these things to happen now because they believe Scripture says they are to happen now (from the Matthew 24:34 verse). If Hagee didn't really say that unsourced comment then obviously I won't hold him to that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he already has or will make a statement like that in the future. The man scares me with what he believes will shortly take place. He favorite phrase is "there will be a 'nuclear exchange' in the Middle East." That's not evangelism. It sounds like getting people to believe your opinion and buy all your ministry materials based on fear. Hagee's telecasts are part sermon, part advertisement. Clinevol98 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
While its true we are not to have any divisions, we are also told all be decided in our own minds concerning smaller things, and alot of times differences in end times theology really don't matter. However, I think in this case they might matter based on some of the things you're saying, for instance, you say you would love to live a long life here on earth, is that through love of life? Nextly, while its true the NT doesn't tell us to support Israel, the part of the OT that is recommending it so you'll be blessed wasn't part of the Law, it came from one of the prophets I think. Nextly, in revelations, surely you have to admit that Israel in particular is the scene of at least some things mentioned surrounding Armageddon, I mean, there's all that temple being rebuilt stuff, and even if you take it symbolically, why would the symbolism cite the temple in Israel when there's a whole world full of land it could of referred to? Nextly, dispensationalism and premillenialism as newly defined constructs may be making an entire series of doctrines in a new bundle, but even the apostles and people in the NT sure acted like they expected Jesus to come any day now, which is a big thing for premillenialism and whatnot. While it certainly doesn't make premillenialism or dispensationalism as a whole right, it does seem to cast doubt on the idea that there was widespread acceptance of a notion that Jesus wasn't coming for a very, very long time. On the rapture, I mean the rapture in the Left Behind series sense, what else could Christ's warnings about being ready for Him to return and those warnings about His arrival like "a theif in the night" refer to, a theif probably wouldn't take 1,000 years (or, as you say, a symbolic amount of time possibly countless millenia longer) upon arriving at the scene to do something. On Raptureready.com, i'm afraid I can't trust a site that says under its hell-fire preaching topic here that hell-fire preaching is a good thing, because it shows a lack of understanding that hell-fire preaching really barely says anything about the gospel, if it even mentions it period, and i'm fairly certain Hagee mentions Christ's name many times in his sermons. My favorite ministry is the one which runs The Way of the Master, and most of them seem fairly dispensationalist to a point, but they certainly aren't much like Raptureready.com. Hagee seems to believe that nuclear war will take place because, as i've told that editor on the Hagee talk page several times, Iran seems to hate us. A whole lot. From the antics their president (And really, much of their religion) cause, I wouldn't be surprised if nukes starting flying, and it would probably be from Iran first honestly. (And likely for lousy reasons to boot). I think we'd probably shoot most of them down first though, and besides, what's to be afraid about, we are commanded not to be afraid of war and talks of wars. And really, Hagee doesn't seem to be telling people to fear Iran and cower and tremble at the nukes to come, but he always seems to talk about things in the context of getting ready for Christ to come back, so even though its hardly a very direct form of evangelism, its probably much more effective than the touchy feely stuff going on in most big churches now. And while he does sell his things, he has to get funding somehow to run that show of his, that kind of stuff costs a very large amount of money, and even a pretty fair sized congregation probably couldn't be expected to tithe that much. (And yes, I know Hagee is a tithe person, and I don't like it either) Homestarmy 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I say I want to live a life here on Earth because that is what I want to do. Frankly I'm not looking forward to the same things that dispensationals look forward to. Jesus told us to keep on living for Him and preaching the Gospel until the end. He didn't say "become absorbed in prophecy and make it your all-consuming thought" (1 Thessalonians 5:2) as so many people do. Paul warned us against doing this (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2).
I really like Ecclesiastes 11:9-10. I don't quite know what you mean by that statement about "love of life".
I agree with you about Hagee's form of evangelism; it's not a direct form of evangelism at all. Jesus, Paul, and the apostles didn't evangelize people based on the fact that global chaos was about to erupt and there wasn't much time. The based their evangelism based on the truth that Jesus is the Son of God and he bore the sins of the world upon Himself so that we might have eternal life with Him. They didn't go around scaring people, which I believe is what Hagee does to a certain extent whether he means to do it or not. He shouldn't be scaring people into getting them to getting saved. He also shouldn't decree that we don't have much time before the nukes start flying and the rapture, because he doesn't know that. Only God does. He should show people the truth straight from the Bible on how to be saved rather than getting people to buy into his suspect prophecies.
Personally, there is no way Iran attacks Israel, at least in the next few years. As I said before, the man is crazy but not stupid. Besides, he doesn't even have a nuke yet. Also remember that he is in a very small minority in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other moderate Arab nations don't like to see a strong and especially nuclear Iran. It's not in our or their best interests.
I believe the reason Jesus' Second Coming is talked about in an imminent sense is because Jesus wants us to be ready. He could come at any instant. For example, you don't snooze off in class during a lecture because what if the teacher decides to have a pop quiz? We need to be prepared for it to happen at any instant, but the coming itself will come like a thief in the night. However, I do believe that the millennium represents a very long period of time. As you say, this fact doesn't discredit postmillennialism at all.
As for the rebuilding of the temple being talked about in Revelation, I'm not very familiar with that. I'll look into it. On raptureready.com, I was talking about looking at the message board and reading the statements that people make there. What did they say about hellfire preaching that you disagreed with? They frightened me so much that I have blocked that website from my computer! Clinevol98 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
On the life thing, I was simply concerned that you were loving your life, to the effect of violating John 12:25. I'm really more of an evangelism are-you-saved kind of a guy rather than a "Believe my end times theology/belief for/against predestination/believe my view concerning transubstantiation" sort of guy. On the apostles, it certainly is true they wern't evangelizing based solely on Revelations because, well, obviously, it probably hadn't even existed then, but I don't think I agree with you that they wern't scaring people another way, after all, they often used the Law in their sermons. While the Bible never tells us the people were really afraid of this, they did often preach about people being saved from the wrath to come, and after all, it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God. Hagee does however seem a wee bit too confident in the timetable he's predicting though, but even though I do think he really ought to focus more on Jesus and the wrath to come, he's right about one thing, wars will start happening eventually (even if their not the one's he's thinking of). I gotta say though, on Iran, the reason alot of those other arab countries probably don't like what Iran is doing probably isn't because their more moderate, but because their all mostly Sunni and Iran is mostly Shiite :/. The second temple thing seems to be derived from Revelations 11:1, not necessarily explicitly, but because since the temple has been torn down ever since I think around 100 AD, it would logically have to be built back up sometime in the future before power can be given to the two witnesses. For Raptureready, as I looked at more of their site much of it seemed OK, but on the hell-fire bit, the article specifically said that it was a valid method of evangelizing. I don't think whoever wrote that (and there appears to be just one person who wrote all those articles) understands that hell-fire preaching almost never presents the gospel very well, and sometimes fails compleatly at the law too, so you're not only telling people of condemntation and not giving them a solution, but you're also not defending why people are condemned in the first place. I didn't look at their message board, but in my experience, looking at the people who post on forums isn't necessarily the best way to get the point of view of the website its hosted on, because alot of times really anybody can post on those things whether their with the website or not. Homestarmy 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Other Arab nations do not want to be intimidated by a nuclear Iran and it is not in their best interests to support Iran in their nuclear ambitions. As you said it also has to do with the Sunni/Shiite split.
I don't really think we are commanded by Jesus to hate our lives by John 12:25. God created us in His image. Does He really want us walking around beating ourselves up and hating the life that God has given us to serve Him? I think what Jesus is talking about there when he says "love his life" is excessive self-pride and self-gratification and not having God first in your life. Jesus also says other things that seem bizarre at first reading, such as Luke 14:26. I mean, do you "hate" your life? Clinevol98 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean like hating yourself for existing, I merely mean not loving your life, which doesn't necessarily mean hatred for it. It's an in the world vs. out of the world kind of thing, whereas you shouldn't love what's inside the world. However, you have to understand, the Arab world is a very complicated thing to deal with because its just so unlike the west due to Islamic rule everywhere, it is filled with all sorts of nasty propaganda and myths, and i've heard a report or two that many nations are starting to support Shia Islam more because Iran is more powerful. Both Iran and most other arab nations hate Israel pretty much, and as far as i've read, no arab nations (Well, maybe besides Egypt, but their special) really are against Iran a great deal on this. Homestarmy 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The Arab world is complicated, but I can assure you that the Arab World does not want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon. They do not want to see Iran become the major power play in the Middle East. Remember Saudi Arabia's, Egypt's, and Jordan's stances on the Israel/Hezbollah war? They actually condemned Hezbollah! They saw that war (and rightly so) as Iran flexing its muscles in the region and became worried. Other Westernized Arab nations, like the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain, don't share Iran's hateful desires.
I think it's simplfying a situation to make this scenario "Arabs vs. the West." Some fellow Muslims have a hatred for fellow Muslims. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat to regional peace and security and Iran's Arab neighbors know that.
What surprises me is the fact that a lot of people are looking to a "Russian/Iranian" joint attack on Israel soon. Sure, Iran hates Israel, but Russia? They have helped Iran in the construction of one of their nuclear reactors, but an all-out invasion of Israel very soon? How likely do you see that? Clinevol98 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, alot of people i've read about seem to think the other Arab countries may of condemned that war with Lebanon because it was too soon for their liking, and while the simple existance of this theory alone certainly doesn't make it right, i'm not so certain other arab countries were against the fight based on Iran's participation, after all, Syria is perhaps an even bigger player in helping Hezbollah and those kinds of groups get weapons, and i'm fairly certain their dominated by Sunni islam rather than Shia. I don't think all the countries around there really care a good deal about Iran attacking them, and I don't think they'd really be eager to stop Iran or condemn them too much either if they attack Israel. On Russia, I gotta admit, i'm not really sure how that extrapolation came into being with Revelations, I think it has to do with some OT prophecy concerning people quite a distance to the north of Israel joining up with a bunch of other armies to try and beat Israel, and supposedly, this location is somewhere in modern day Russia. I gotta say though, I agree that Russia wouldn't be very high on my "list of people who want Israel to die" list. Another big thing that I wonder about with end times prophecies concerning this war is that no matter how many prophecies dispensationalist type people show as to how the end is nigh, I never see one of the most important things of all that needs to happen, namely, that the Antichrist will have to effectively rule the whole earth under one world government. There's just so many factions in world politics right now, I don't see how even the Antichrist has much hope of uniting them now in merely a single lifetime, even if he somehow takes, say, the whole Arab world or the whole European world, there's still Eastern countries, Africa (Which is split between a highly evangelical pentecostal Christian filled south and a hardline Muslim north) and Latin America to take into account. Homestarmy 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Iran's biggest ally is Syria. I read somewhere that they have what they called a "mutual defense pact" with each other. An attack on one of them is considered an attack on both of them. Also keep in mind though that we have Iran, in effect, surrounded. We've got troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and warships/military bases all over the Persian Gulf and so do our allies. I really don't see Iran making any sort of dumb move until we begin bringing troops home from Iraq, which doesn't appear to be anytime soon. In fact, Iran is bogging us down in Iraq by fueling the insurgency. Also remember that Israel (or possibly the US) won't hesitate to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran if they feel they are close to getting a nuke. If this attack caught Iran off guard, Israel might cripple their defenses before they knew what hit them.
You say that you're not sure how the Russian invasion of Israel extrapolation came into Revelation; that's because it's not in Revelation. It's in Ezekiel 38-39, and to me it's just a theory. The nation to the north of Israel somehow automatically becomes 21st Century Russia. But couldn't it theoretically be Lebanon, Turkey, Ukraine, or any nation in Europe? Those nations are all north of Israel too. A 21st Century invasion being described in a book that was written in 500 BC (or thereabouts) cannot be inferred from that passage for the reasons I've already described. Besides, even if that is what it says, it's not close to taking place. As you said, Russia isn't very high up on the "people who want Israel to die" list and probably won't be anytime soon. They are helping Iran purely as a business interest, not because they share Iran's hate of Israel. Europe and the US are putting pressure on Russia to curb their modest "alliance" as well.
I totally agree with you regarding the antichrist. According to the dispensationals, this one man will unite the entire world. People are so skeptical of politicians now, so what makes people believe that the entire world will unite around a one-world government? People would become paranoid and never rally around a cause like that, at least not anytime soon. That is a nightmare scenario to most people and they would never support it or call for it. At this stage, is would be impossible to unite all different people groups as well. We are many generations away before a climate that would be receptive to a global government will come along.
Also remember that, according to the dispensationals, this antichrist will control all transactions between people and maybe even track them (Revelation 13:16). Many people (including Hagee) take this to mean that the antichrist will have everyone injected with some sort of RFID chip in their body that will literally track their every move. There would have to be some sort of supercomputer that would have to be able to keep track of the movements of billions of people all at the same time (Which apparently does exist, according to Jack Van Impe, because it can do 6 billion calculations per second. However, programming that computer to track microchips implanted in human beings is a different story, wouldn't you say?). Also keep in mind that people will apparently willingly be injected with this chip or somehow have it already in them when the antichrist arises (like if it becomes a societal norm over many years). Can you imagine that happening today? This would seemingly do away with cash and credit cards too. Again, we seem to be a long way away from that. Thoughts? Clinevol98 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if Syria and Iran have something special between each other then I guess that's one thing, but think about it, in terms of how loud outcry has been against Iran, who has been more adament against them, the United States, or those middle eastern nations nearby? On Israel being able to defend itself, all of the wars Israel have fought so far have been near their own borders, and in some of them, their powerful airforce couldn't move into action until after their also powerful ground forces removed the enemies Anti-aircraft weapons. The fastest air route to Iran would be over Syria probably, and considering they probably still have forces on the other side of the Golan Heights, i'm not sure how Israel would really be able to hit Iran quickly, and I don't see how such a small country would have room for nuclear weapon silos to blow Iran up before Iran blew them up. On the Antichrist, its always possible we in the U.S. are somehow under some Orwellian goverment conspiracy deal and that the Antichrist has been secretly controlling the rest of the world for awhile now, but conspiracy theories like that are the only way it seems possible for the Antichrist to just take over really fast. The RFID chip thing isn't actually as silly as it may sound, there's been some news articles out recently about chips they can put in people's heads that people can use to literally play videogames using their brain as the controller, and there's also one which will re-route nerves to get around damaged tissue. (It can be re-programmed remotely.) So if they can do that with something as sensitive as the brain, it seems entirely possible for RFID chips to be the Antichrist's brand of choice, though of course, something metaphysically more evil is entirely possible. Wireless signals in something as tiny as a TomTom can reach up to GPS satellites, so it seems they could easily be re-programmed to the Antichrist's purposes. Homestarmy 13:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. Remember that people will willingly have these chips put into them because they will adore this one-world ruler. That isn't happening anytime soon.
Middle Eastern nations aren't crying out against Iran because they are afraid to. Believe me, they don't want Iran to get a nuke. Israel also has nuclear weapons and complex missile defense systems that can shoot down most missiles. Germany also recently covered most of the costs on 2 nuclear submarines for Israel that nuclear missiles can be launched from. Having said that, I'm not a "nuclear war" doomsdayer. Iran knows they would be annhilated if they attack Israel.
Remember, the RFID stories you have heard are very isolated cases. It's not like everyone has a microchip in their head. I guess the base technology is there, but definitely not on a widespread scale. Besides, Revelation 13 isn't talking about a one-world ruler tracking people anyway. It's a parody of marks the Roman Empire put on people and isn't a literal mark. There is hardly anything meant to be taken literally in Revelation. Clinevol98 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So what do you think?
You are exactly right when you say that premillennialists have a "conspiratorial" view of history and the future. As you read on he more or less says it's possible that the antichrist has been secretly controlling people for a while now and it's just a matter of time before he arises.
Hmm, i've never debated anything about revelations before, it's just one of those things I dunno why we can't live and let live about :/. After all, did Christ ever command us to all have the same end-times theology? :) . You've said a whole lot of things that would likely take me a very long time to examine, (Some of which I don't think I agree with, such as there being no rapture and that verse about helping Israel being cancelled) but if I may be so bold, from what i've heard from Hagee's sermons and from people who give sermons like his, i'm not sure you're hearing them correctly. You say their looking forward to chaos and death, and that Hagee want's a pre-emptive strike, but the quote from him on his article here didn't actually give an adequate reference for that, (and, therefore, I removed it) for all I know, somebody just put that there to discredit him and cited a random conference thing he went to. And none of them ever seem to want chaos and death, they just seem to want people to really realize right quick that its happening and that it will get worse, probably so that they'll go and get saved....while they still have time. Homestarmy 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
First off, I didn't say that there isn't a rapture. There is a rapture, but it doesn't occur before the tribulation. The rapture will occur at the end of time at the Second Coming. The Bible nowhere explicitly talks of a "secret" coming or "Third" coming of Jesus before the Second Coming. Also, nowhere in the New Testament are we commanded to support "God's chosen people"/Israel. God's chosen people are Christians. God does not work through Israel anymore and I don't believe we are commanded by God to support modern-day Israel. Again, I do not want you to get me wrong on this. I support Israel and they have every right to go after those who seek to destroy them. Although I do not believe that God has a very specific end times "plan" for them, He obviously remembers His relationship with them and watches over them as He does everyone else.
Of course Jesus wanted us to have the same end times theology. Division among Christians is the last thing He wants. In fact, dispensationalism and premillennialism are the "new kids on the block" when it comes to end times doctrines.
Second, have you ever visited raptureready.com and their message board? There are lots of people out there, Hagee included, who believe these events are at hand and maybe even welcome them. It is as if they believe the world is an awful place, they don't want to live on Earth anymore, and they want to escape as soon as possible. Personally, I would love to live a long life here on Earth before I die or before the Second Coming. Do you believe that all this stuff is coming soon, because we very well could be here another 1,000 years.
They are very anxious for these things to happen now because they believe Scripture says they are to happen now (from the Matthew 24:34 verse). If Hagee didn't really say that unsourced comment then obviously I won't hold him to that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he already has or will make a statement like that in the future. The man scares me with what he believes will shortly take place. He favorite phrase is "there will be a 'nuclear exchange' in the Middle East." That's not evangelism. It sounds like getting people to believe your opinion and buy all your ministry materials based on fear. Hagee's telecasts are part sermon, part advertisement. Clinevol98 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
While its true we are not to have any divisions, we are also told all be decided in our own minds concerning smaller things, and alot of times differences in end times theology really don't matter. However, I think in this case they might matter based on some of the things you're saying, for instance, you say you would love to live a long life here on earth, is that through love of life? Nextly, while its true the NT doesn't tell us to support Israel, the part of the OT that is recommending it so you'll be blessed wasn't part of the Law, it came from one of the prophets I think. Nextly, in revelations, surely you have to admit that Israel in particular is the scene of at least some things mentioned surrounding Armageddon, I mean, there's all that temple being rebuilt stuff, and even if you take it symbolically, why would the symbolism cite the temple in Israel when there's a whole world full of land it could of referred to? Nextly, dispensationalism and premillenialism as newly defined constructs may be making an entire series of doctrines in a new bundle, but even the apostles and people in the NT sure acted like they expected Jesus to come any day now, which is a big thing for premillenialism and whatnot. While it certainly doesn't make premillenialism or dispensationalism as a whole right, it does seem to cast doubt on the idea that there was widespread acceptance of a notion that Jesus wasn't coming for a very, very long time. On the rapture, I mean the rapture in the Left Behind series sense, what else could Christ's warnings about being ready for Him to return and those warnings about His arrival like "a theif in the night" refer to, a theif probably wouldn't take 1,000 years (or, as you say, a symbolic amount of time possibly countless millenia longer) upon arriving at the scene to do something. On Raptureready.com, i'm afraid I can't trust a site that says under its hell-fire preaching topic here that hell-fire preaching is a good thing, because it shows a lack of understanding that hell-fire preaching really barely says anything about the gospel, if it even mentions it period, and i'm fairly certain Hagee mentions Christ's name many times in his sermons. My favorite ministry is the one which runs The Way of the Master, and most of them seem fairly dispensationalist to a point, but they certainly aren't much like Raptureready.com. Hagee seems to believe that nuclear war will take place because, as i've told that editor on the Hagee talk page several times, Iran seems to hate us. A whole lot. From the antics their president (And really, much of their religion) cause, I wouldn't be surprised if nukes starting flying, and it would probably be from Iran first honestly. (And likely for lousy reasons to boot). I think we'd probably shoot most of them down first though, and besides, what's to be afraid about, we are commanded not to be afraid of war and talks of wars. And really, Hagee doesn't seem to be telling people to fear Iran and cower and tremble at the nukes to come, but he always seems to talk about things in the context of getting ready for Christ to come back, so even though its hardly a very direct form of evangelism, its probably much more effective than the touchy feely stuff going on in most big churches now. And while he does sell his things, he has to get funding somehow to run that show of his, that kind of stuff costs a very large amount of money, and even a pretty fair sized congregation probably couldn't be expected to tithe that much. (And yes, I know Hagee is a tithe person, and I don't like it either) Homestarmy 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I say I want to live a life here on Earth because that is what I want to do. Frankly I'm not looking forward to the same things that dispensationals look forward to. Jesus told us to keep on living for Him and preaching the Gospel until the end. He didn't say "become absorbed in prophecy and make it your all-consuming thought" (1 Thessalonians 5:2) as so many people do. Paul warned us against doing this (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2).
I really like Ecclesiastes 11:9-10. I don't quite know what you mean by that statement about "love of life".
I agree with you about Hagee's form of evangelism; it's not a direct form of evangelism at all. Jesus, Paul, and the apostles didn't evangelize people based on the fact that global chaos was about to erupt and there wasn't much time. The based their evangelism based on the truth that Jesus is the Son of God and he bore the sins of the world upon Himself so that we might have eternal life with Him. They didn't go around scaring people, which I believe is what Hagee does to a certain extent whether he means to do it or not. He shouldn't be scaring people into getting them to getting saved. He also shouldn't decree that we don't have much time before the nukes start flying and the rapture, because he doesn't know that. Only God does. He should show people the truth straight from the Bible on how to be saved rather than getting people to buy into his suspect prophecies.
Personally, there is no way Iran attacks Israel, at least in the next few years. As I said before, the man is crazy but not stupid. Besides, he doesn't even have a nuke yet. Also remember that he is in a very small minority in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other moderate Arab nations don't like to see a strong and especially nuclear Iran. It's not in our or their best interests.
I believe the reason Jesus' Second Coming is talked about in an imminent sense is because Jesus wants us to be ready. He could come at any instant. For example, you don't snooze off in class during a lecture because what if the teacher decides to have a pop quiz? We need to be prepared for it to happen at any instant, but the coming itself will come like a thief in the night. However, I do believe that the millennium represents a very long period of time. As you say, this fact doesn't discredit postmillennialism at all.
As for the rebuilding of the temple being talked about in Revelation, I'm not very familiar with that. I'll look into it. On raptureready.com, I was talking about looking at the message board and reading the statements that people make there. What did they say about hellfire preaching that you disagreed with? They frightened me so much that I have blocked that website from my computer! Clinevol98 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
On the life thing, I was simply concerned that you were loving your life, to the effect of violating John 12:25. I'm really more of an evangelism are-you-saved kind of a guy rather than a "Believe my end times theology/belief for/against predestination/believe my view concerning transubstantiation" sort of guy. On the apostles, it certainly is true they wern't evangelizing based solely on Revelations because, well, obviously, it probably hadn't even existed then, but I don't think I agree with you that they wern't scaring people another way, after all, they often used the Law in their sermons. While the Bible never tells us the people were really afraid of this, they did often preach about people being saved from the wrath to come, and after all, it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God. Hagee does however seem a wee bit too confident in the timetable he's predicting though, but even though I do think he really ought to focus more on Jesus and the wrath to come, he's right about one thing, wars will start happening eventually (even if their not the one's he's thinking of). I gotta say though, on Iran, the reason alot of those other arab countries probably don't like what Iran is doing probably isn't because their more moderate, but because their all mostly Sunni and Iran is mostly Shiite :/. The second temple thing seems to be derived from Revelations 11:1, not necessarily explicitly, but because since the temple has been torn down ever since I think around 100 AD, it would logically have to be built back up sometime in the future before power can be given to the two witnesses. For Raptureready, as I looked at more of their site much of it seemed OK, but on the hell-fire bit, the article specifically said that it was a valid method of evangelizing. I don't think whoever wrote that (and there appears to be just one person who wrote all those articles) understands that hell-fire preaching almost never presents the gospel very well, and sometimes fails compleatly at the law too, so you're not only telling people of condemntation and not giving them a solution, but you're also not defending why people are condemned in the first place. I didn't look at their message board, but in my experience, looking at the people who post on forums isn't necessarily the best way to get the point of view of the website its hosted on, because alot of times really anybody can post on those things whether their with the website or not. Homestarmy 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Other Arab nations do not want to be intimidated by a nuclear Iran and it is not in their best interests to support Iran in their nuclear ambitions. As you said it also has to do with the Sunni/Shiite split.
I don't really think we are commanded by Jesus to hate our lives by John 12:25. God created us in His image. Does He really want us walking around beating ourselves up and hating the life that God has given us to serve Him? I think what Jesus is talking about there when he says "love his life" is excessive self-pride and self-gratification and not having God first in your life. Jesus also says other things that seem bizarre at first reading, such as Luke 14:26. I mean, do you "hate" your life? Clinevol98 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean like hating yourself for existing, I merely mean not loving your life, which doesn't necessarily mean hatred for it. It's an in the world vs. out of the world kind of thing, whereas you shouldn't love what's inside the world. However, you have to understand, the Arab world is a very complicated thing to deal with because its just so unlike the west due to Islamic rule everywhere, it is filled with all sorts of nasty propaganda and myths, and i've heard a report or two that many nations are starting to support Shia Islam more because Iran is more powerful. Both Iran and most other arab nations hate Israel pretty much, and as far as i've read, no arab nations (Well, maybe besides Egypt, but their special) really are against Iran a great deal on this. Homestarmy 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The Arab world is complicated, but I can assure you that the Arab World does not want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon. They do not want to see Iran become the major power play in the Middle East. Remember Saudi Arabia's, Egypt's, and Jordan's stances on the Israel/Hezbollah war? They actually condemned Hezbollah! They saw that war (and rightly so) as Iran flexing its muscles in the region and became worried. Other Westernized Arab nations, like the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain, don't share Iran's hateful desires.
I think it's simplfying a situation to make this scenario "Arabs vs. the West." Some fellow Muslims have a hatred for fellow Muslims. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat to regional peace and security and Iran's Arab neighbors know that.
What surprises me is the fact that a lot of people are looking to a "Russian/Iranian" joint attack on Israel soon. Sure, Iran hates Israel, but Russia? They have helped Iran in the construction of one of their nuclear reactors, but an all-out invasion of Israel very soon? How likely do you see that? Clinevol98 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, alot of people i've read about seem to think the other Arab countries may of condemned that war with Lebanon because it was too soon for their liking, and while the simple existance of this theory alone certainly doesn't make it right, i'm not so certain other arab countries were against the fight based on Iran's participation, after all, Syria is perhaps an even bigger player in helping Hezbollah and those kinds of groups get weapons, and i'm fairly certain their dominated by Sunni islam rather than Shia. I don't think all the countries around there really care a good deal about Iran attacking them, and I don't think they'd really be eager to stop Iran or condemn them too much either if they attack Israel. On Russia, I gotta admit, i'm not really sure how that extrapolation came into being with Revelations, I think it has to do with some OT prophecy concerning people quite a distance to the north of Israel joining up with a bunch of other armies to try and beat Israel, and supposedly, this location is somewhere in modern day Russia. I gotta say though, I agree that Russia wouldn't be very high on my "list of people who want Israel to die" list. Another big thing that I wonder about with end times prophecies concerning this war is that no matter how many prophecies dispensationalist type people show as to how the end is nigh, I never see one of the most important things of all that needs to happen, namely, that the Antichrist will have to effectively rule the whole earth under one world government. There's just so many factions in world politics right now, I don't see how even the Antichrist has much hope of uniting them now in merely a single lifetime, even if he somehow takes, say, the whole Arab world or the whole European world, there's still Eastern countries, Africa (Which is split between a highly evangelical pentecostal Christian filled south and a hardline Muslim north) and Latin America to take into account. Homestarmy 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Iran's biggest ally is Syria. I read somewhere that they have what they called a "mutual defense pact" with each other. An attack on one of them is considered an attack on both of them. Also keep in mind though that we have Iran, in effect, surrounded. We've got troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and warships/military bases all over the Persian Gulf and so do our allies. I really don't see Iran making any sort of dumb move until we begin bringing troops home from Iraq, which doesn't appear to be anytime soon. In fact, Iran is bogging us down in Iraq by fueling the insurgency. Also remember that Israel (or possibly the US) won't hesitate to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran if they feel they are close to getting a nuke. If this attack caught Iran off guard, Israel might cripple their defenses before they knew what hit them.
You say that you're not sure how the Russian invasion of Israel extrapolation came into Revelation; that's because it's not in Revelation. It's in Ezekiel 38-39, and to me it's just a theory. The nation to the north of Israel somehow automatically becomes 21st Century Russia. But couldn't it theoretically be Lebanon, Turkey, Ukraine, or any nation in Europe? Those nations are all north of Israel too. A 21st Century invasion being described in a book that was written in 500 BC (or thereabouts) cannot be inferred from that passage for the reasons I've already described. Besides, even if that is what it says, it's not close to taking place. As you said, Russia isn't very high up on the "people who want Israel to die" list and probably won't be anytime soon. They are helping Iran purely as a business interest, not because they share Iran's hate of Israel. Europe and the US are putting pressure on Russia to curb their modest "alliance" as well.
I totally agree with you regarding the antichrist. According to the dispensationals, this one man will unite the entire world. People are so skeptical of politicians now, so what makes people believe that the entire world will unite around a one-world government? People would become paranoid and never rally around a cause like that, at least not anytime soon. That is a nightmare scenario to most people and they would never support it or call for it. At this stage, is would be impossible to unite all different people groups as well. We are many generations away before a climate that would be receptive to a global government will come along.
Also remember that, according to the dispensationals, this antichrist will control all transactions between people and maybe even track them (Revelation 13:16). Many people (including Hagee) take this to mean that the antichrist will have everyone injected with some sort of RFID chip in their body that will literally track their every move. There would have to be some sort of supercomputer that would have to be able to keep track of the movements of billions of people all at the same time (Which apparently does exist, according to Jack Van Impe, because it can do 6 billion calculations per second. However, programming that computer to track microchips implanted in human beings is a different story, wouldn't you say?). Also keep in mind that people will apparently willingly be injected with this chip or somehow have it already in them when the antichrist arises (like if it becomes a societal norm over many years). Can you imagine that happening today? This would seemingly do away with cash and credit cards too. Again, we seem to be a long way away from that. Thoughts? Clinevol98 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if Syria and Iran have something special between each other then I guess that's one thing, but think about it, in terms of how loud outcry has been against Iran, who has been more adament against them, the United States, or those middle eastern nations nearby? On Israel being able to defend itself, all of the wars Israel have fought so far have been near their own borders, and in some of them, their powerful airforce couldn't move into action until after their also powerful ground forces removed the enemies Anti-aircraft weapons. The fastest air route to Iran would be over Syria probably, and considering they probably still have forces on the other side of the Golan Heights, i'm not sure how Israel would really be able to hit Iran quickly, and I don't see how such a small country would have room for nuclear weapon silos to blow Iran up before Iran blew them up. On the Antichrist, its always possible we in the U.S. are somehow under some Orwellian goverment conspiracy deal and that the Antichrist has been secretly controlling the rest of the world for awhile now, but conspiracy theories like that are the only way it seems possible for the Antichrist to just take over really fast. The RFID chip thing isn't actually as silly as it may sound, there's been some news articles out recently about chips they can put in people's heads that people can use to literally play videogames using their brain as the controller, and there's also one which will re-route nerves to get around damaged tissue. (It can be re-programmed remotely.) So if they can do that with something as sensitive as the brain, it seems entirely possible for RFID chips to be the Antichrist's brand of choice, though of course, something metaphysically more evil is entirely possible. Wireless signals in something as tiny as a TomTom can reach up to GPS satellites, so it seems they could easily be re-programmed to the Antichrist's purposes. Homestarmy 13:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. Remember that people will willingly have these chips put into them because they will adore this one-world ruler. That isn't happening anytime soon.
Middle Eastern nations aren't crying out against Iran because they are afraid to. Believe me, they don't want Iran to get a nuke. Israel also has nuclear weapons and complex missile defense systems that can shoot down most missiles. Germany also recently covered most of the costs on 2 nuclear submarines for Israel that nuclear missiles can be launched from. Having said that, I'm not a "nuclear war" doomsdayer. Iran knows they would be annhilated if they attack Israel.
Remember, the RFID stories you have heard are very isolated cases. It's not like everyone has a microchip in their head. I guess the base technology is there, but definitely not on a widespread scale. Besides, Revelation 13 isn't talking about a one-world ruler tracking people anyway. It's a parody of marks the Roman Empire put on people and isn't a literal mark. There is hardly anything meant to be taken literally in Revelation. Clinevol98 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So what do you think?
- clinevol98
- Minor League
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:45 pm
by clinevol98 » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:15 pm
Here's a continuation of the discussion, where he talks about how Iran could smuggle a nuke into Israel, questions how Revelation should be interpreted, and suggests that maybe neither premillennialists or postmillennialists have it right.
How do you know if middle eastern nations are afraid to say anything or not, if they aren't actually saying much of anything? The muslim world often operates on a principle of not commenting on atrocities commited in the name of their religion, how many Muslim nations do you know which have a firm majority of people who belive Al Qaida commited 9/11 for example? (I've seen the polls, generally, a commanding majority believe the U.S. did it to themselves to make Islam look bad.) Also, remember, a nuclear weapon doesn't just have to fly into a target, Iran could probably try and smuggle at least one inside of Israel, and with Israel's limited land size, that nuke would do tremendous damage. (Of course, then Israel might have a large crater in it that shouldn't be there in terms of Revelations, so there probably will be an attempt on Israel, it will just probably fail). And why do you think that almost nothing in Revelations can be taken literally, is it merely because Dispensationalists and the like say that they and they alone have the one true "literal" interpretation? Because, you know, you'd be surprised how many people say they have the one true interpretation of things when in reality, if you read it yourself without any presuppositions one way or another about the correct way to read it, you might figure out something on your own that neither side really gets right. Homestarmy 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are simplfying this entire situation. Of course Muslims believe that the US did 9/11 to itself. They have a warped worldview. But don't think the Muslims are one cohesive unit. Why is there sectarian violence in Iraq; Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Because the Sunnis and the Shias hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews and the West!
It would be incredibly difficult for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. Why you ask? Because they would have to sneak it right under the noses of the huge US military presence in the Middle East. They would most likely try to launch a nuclear missile, which they don't have the nuclear warhead to do it with yet.
Revelation is not meant to be taken literally because it is apocalyptic literature. Read the book. Is there going to be a literal beast out of the sea? Is there going to be a literal woman who literally gives birth and a literal dragon that literally attempts to eat the child right after it is born? Of course not. So why should Jesus literally reign 1,000 years on the Earth with Satan literally tied with a literal key in a literal abyss? You cannot pick and choose which verses you take literally and which verses you take figuratively. Revelation and every book of prophecy must be read and interpreted in its proper historical context, and dispensationalists don't do that. They want every little thing to somehow apply to them today. This doesn't mean that the Bible is useless today, because of course it isn't. But I don't believe the Bible speaks specifically of current events outside of saying that wars will continue to the end of time and Jesus will one day return to end time.
I believe that dispensationalists misinterpret Revelation and many other passages of Scripture and construct theories around those misinterpretations and taking verses out of context. Most of the things in Revelation are about the Roman Empire and how God's people would be victorious over it. Remember how Rome severely persecuted Christians? The letter must be written with symbols, or a "code" if you will, so if the letter got into the wrong hands (remember, it was being sent to 7 ancient churches, not Christians of the 21st Century; this is just about the only thing that can be taken literally in Revelation) the Romans would have no idea what it was talking about. Ironically, dispensationalists take this fact figuratively, saying it applies to periods of world history with absolutely no basis for doing so! Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are meant to give comfort and peace to people at that time. It is a word for people at that time. Why should Revelation apply to the 21st Century? Revelation 1:1 says "...what must soon take place."
The events that Daniel prophesied didn't come to fruition until much later after they were revealed, and look what Daniel 8:26 says: "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." Meanwhile, John was told not to seal up the words of his prophecy, because the "time is near" (Revelation 22:10). It seems to be an urgent message from God to His people. Understand what is being said in its proper context. Why should Daniel and Ezekiel apply to the 21st Century? It is much more plausible for it to apply to the people at those times. We shouldn't think that every bit of prophecy somehow applies to us, because it doesn't. What good would a document concerning events to happen 2000 years from now do for members of the Early Church who were under fierce persecution? Clinevol98 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you know if middle eastern nations are afraid to say anything or not, if they aren't actually saying much of anything? The muslim world often operates on a principle of not commenting on atrocities commited in the name of their religion, how many Muslim nations do you know which have a firm majority of people who belive Al Qaida commited 9/11 for example? (I've seen the polls, generally, a commanding majority believe the U.S. did it to themselves to make Islam look bad.) Also, remember, a nuclear weapon doesn't just have to fly into a target, Iran could probably try and smuggle at least one inside of Israel, and with Israel's limited land size, that nuke would do tremendous damage. (Of course, then Israel might have a large crater in it that shouldn't be there in terms of Revelations, so there probably will be an attempt on Israel, it will just probably fail). And why do you think that almost nothing in Revelations can be taken literally, is it merely because Dispensationalists and the like say that they and they alone have the one true "literal" interpretation? Because, you know, you'd be surprised how many people say they have the one true interpretation of things when in reality, if you read it yourself without any presuppositions one way or another about the correct way to read it, you might figure out something on your own that neither side really gets right. Homestarmy 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are simplfying this entire situation. Of course Muslims believe that the US did 9/11 to itself. They have a warped worldview. But don't think the Muslims are one cohesive unit. Why is there sectarian violence in Iraq; Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Because the Sunnis and the Shias hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews and the West!
It would be incredibly difficult for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. Why you ask? Because they would have to sneak it right under the noses of the huge US military presence in the Middle East. They would most likely try to launch a nuclear missile, which they don't have the nuclear warhead to do it with yet.
Revelation is not meant to be taken literally because it is apocalyptic literature. Read the book. Is there going to be a literal beast out of the sea? Is there going to be a literal woman who literally gives birth and a literal dragon that literally attempts to eat the child right after it is born? Of course not. So why should Jesus literally reign 1,000 years on the Earth with Satan literally tied with a literal key in a literal abyss? You cannot pick and choose which verses you take literally and which verses you take figuratively. Revelation and every book of prophecy must be read and interpreted in its proper historical context, and dispensationalists don't do that. They want every little thing to somehow apply to them today. This doesn't mean that the Bible is useless today, because of course it isn't. But I don't believe the Bible speaks specifically of current events outside of saying that wars will continue to the end of time and Jesus will one day return to end time.
I believe that dispensationalists misinterpret Revelation and many other passages of Scripture and construct theories around those misinterpretations and taking verses out of context. Most of the things in Revelation are about the Roman Empire and how God's people would be victorious over it. Remember how Rome severely persecuted Christians? The letter must be written with symbols, or a "code" if you will, so if the letter got into the wrong hands (remember, it was being sent to 7 ancient churches, not Christians of the 21st Century; this is just about the only thing that can be taken literally in Revelation) the Romans would have no idea what it was talking about. Ironically, dispensationalists take this fact figuratively, saying it applies to periods of world history with absolutely no basis for doing so! Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are meant to give comfort and peace to people at that time. It is a word for people at that time. Why should Revelation apply to the 21st Century? Revelation 1:1 says "...what must soon take place."
The events that Daniel prophesied didn't come to fruition until much later after they were revealed, and look what Daniel 8:26 says: "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." Meanwhile, John was told not to seal up the words of his prophecy, because the "time is near" (Revelation 22:10). It seems to be an urgent message from God to His people. Understand what is being said in its proper context. Why should Daniel and Ezekiel apply to the 21st Century? It is much more plausible for it to apply to the people at those times. We shouldn't think that every bit of prophecy somehow applies to us, because it doesn't. What good would a document concerning events to happen 2000 years from now do for members of the Early Church who were under fierce persecution? Clinevol98 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- clinevol98
- Minor League
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:45 pm
by clinevol98 » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:15 pm
Here's a continuation of the discussion, where he talks about how Iran could smuggle a nuke into Israel, questions how Revelation should be interpreted, and suggests that maybe neither premillennialists or postmillennialists have it right.
How do you know if middle eastern nations are afraid to say anything or not, if they aren't actually saying much of anything? The muslim world often operates on a principle of not commenting on atrocities commited in the name of their religion, how many Muslim nations do you know which have a firm majority of people who belive Al Qaida commited 9/11 for example? (I've seen the polls, generally, a commanding majority believe the U.S. did it to themselves to make Islam look bad.) Also, remember, a nuclear weapon doesn't just have to fly into a target, Iran could probably try and smuggle at least one inside of Israel, and with Israel's limited land size, that nuke would do tremendous damage. (Of course, then Israel might have a large crater in it that shouldn't be there in terms of Revelations, so there probably will be an attempt on Israel, it will just probably fail). And why do you think that almost nothing in Revelations can be taken literally, is it merely because Dispensationalists and the like say that they and they alone have the one true "literal" interpretation? Because, you know, you'd be surprised how many people say they have the one true interpretation of things when in reality, if you read it yourself without any presuppositions one way or another about the correct way to read it, you might figure out something on your own that neither side really gets right. Homestarmy 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are simplfying this entire situation. Of course Muslims believe that the US did 9/11 to itself. They have a warped worldview. But don't think the Muslims are one cohesive unit. Why is there sectarian violence in Iraq; Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Because the Sunnis and the Shias hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews and the West!
It would be incredibly difficult for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. Why you ask? Because they would have to sneak it right under the noses of the huge US military presence in the Middle East. They would most likely try to launch a nuclear missile, which they don't have the nuclear warhead to do it with yet. And as you say, any attempt they try to pull this off will probably fail, because Israel is more than capable of shooting a nuclear missile down.
Revelation is not meant to be taken literally because it is apocalyptic literature. Read the book. Is there going to be a literal beast out of the sea? Is there going to be a literal woman who literally gives birth and a literal dragon that literally attempts to eat the child right after it is born? Of course not. So why should Jesus literally reign 1,000 years on the Earth with Satan literally tied with a literal key in a literal abyss? You cannot pick and choose which verses you take literally and which verses you take figuratively. Revelation and every book of prophecy must be read and interpreted in its proper historical context, and dispensationalists don't do that. They want every little thing to somehow apply to them today. This doesn't mean that the Bible is useless today, because of course it isn't. But I don't believe the Bible speaks specifically of current events outside of saying that wars will continue to the end of time and Jesus will one day return to end time.
I believe that dispensationalists misinterpret Revelation and many other passages of Scripture and construct theories around those misinterpretations and taking verses out of context. Most of the things in Revelation are about the Roman Empire and how God's people would be victorious over it. Remember how Rome severely persecuted Christians? The letter must be written with symbols, or a "code" if you will, so if the letter got into the wrong hands (remember, it was being sent to 7 ancient churches, not Christians of the 21st Century; this is just about the only thing that can be taken literally in Revelation) the Romans would have no idea what it was talking about. Ironically, dispensationalists take this fact figuratively, saying it applies to periods of world history with absolutely no basis for doing so! Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are meant to give comfort and peace to people at that time. It is a word for people at that time. Why should Revelation apply to the 21st Century? Revelation 1:1 says "...what must soon take place."
The events that Daniel prophesied didn't come to fruition until much later after they were revealed, and look what Daniel 8:26 says: "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." Meanwhile, John was told not to seal up the words of his prophecy, because the "time is near" (Revelation 22:10). It seems to be an urgent message from God to His people. Understand what is being said in its proper context. Why should Daniel and Ezekiel apply to the 21st Century? It is much more plausible for it to apply to the people at those times. We shouldn't think that every bit of prophecy somehow applies to us, because it doesn't. What good would a document concerning events to happen 2000 years from now do for members of the Early Church who were under fierce persecution? Clinevol98 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How do you know if middle eastern nations are afraid to say anything or not, if they aren't actually saying much of anything? The muslim world often operates on a principle of not commenting on atrocities commited in the name of their religion, how many Muslim nations do you know which have a firm majority of people who belive Al Qaida commited 9/11 for example? (I've seen the polls, generally, a commanding majority believe the U.S. did it to themselves to make Islam look bad.) Also, remember, a nuclear weapon doesn't just have to fly into a target, Iran could probably try and smuggle at least one inside of Israel, and with Israel's limited land size, that nuke would do tremendous damage. (Of course, then Israel might have a large crater in it that shouldn't be there in terms of Revelations, so there probably will be an attempt on Israel, it will just probably fail). And why do you think that almost nothing in Revelations can be taken literally, is it merely because Dispensationalists and the like say that they and they alone have the one true "literal" interpretation? Because, you know, you'd be surprised how many people say they have the one true interpretation of things when in reality, if you read it yourself without any presuppositions one way or another about the correct way to read it, you might figure out something on your own that neither side really gets right. Homestarmy 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are simplfying this entire situation. Of course Muslims believe that the US did 9/11 to itself. They have a warped worldview. But don't think the Muslims are one cohesive unit. Why is there sectarian violence in Iraq; Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Because the Sunnis and the Shias hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews and the West!
It would be incredibly difficult for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. Why you ask? Because they would have to sneak it right under the noses of the huge US military presence in the Middle East. They would most likely try to launch a nuclear missile, which they don't have the nuclear warhead to do it with yet. And as you say, any attempt they try to pull this off will probably fail, because Israel is more than capable of shooting a nuclear missile down.
Revelation is not meant to be taken literally because it is apocalyptic literature. Read the book. Is there going to be a literal beast out of the sea? Is there going to be a literal woman who literally gives birth and a literal dragon that literally attempts to eat the child right after it is born? Of course not. So why should Jesus literally reign 1,000 years on the Earth with Satan literally tied with a literal key in a literal abyss? You cannot pick and choose which verses you take literally and which verses you take figuratively. Revelation and every book of prophecy must be read and interpreted in its proper historical context, and dispensationalists don't do that. They want every little thing to somehow apply to them today. This doesn't mean that the Bible is useless today, because of course it isn't. But I don't believe the Bible speaks specifically of current events outside of saying that wars will continue to the end of time and Jesus will one day return to end time.
I believe that dispensationalists misinterpret Revelation and many other passages of Scripture and construct theories around those misinterpretations and taking verses out of context. Most of the things in Revelation are about the Roman Empire and how God's people would be victorious over it. Remember how Rome severely persecuted Christians? The letter must be written with symbols, or a "code" if you will, so if the letter got into the wrong hands (remember, it was being sent to 7 ancient churches, not Christians of the 21st Century; this is just about the only thing that can be taken literally in Revelation) the Romans would have no idea what it was talking about. Ironically, dispensationalists take this fact figuratively, saying it applies to periods of world history with absolutely no basis for doing so! Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are meant to give comfort and peace to people at that time. It is a word for people at that time. Why should Revelation apply to the 21st Century? Revelation 1:1 says "...what must soon take place."
The events that Daniel prophesied didn't come to fruition until much later after they were revealed, and look what Daniel 8:26 says: "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." Meanwhile, John was told not to seal up the words of his prophecy, because the "time is near" (Revelation 22:10). It seems to be an urgent message from God to His people. Understand what is being said in its proper context. Why should Daniel and Ezekiel apply to the 21st Century? It is much more plausible for it to apply to the people at those times. We shouldn't think that every bit of prophecy somehow applies to us, because it doesn't. What good would a document concerning events to happen 2000 years from now do for members of the Early Church who were under fierce persecution? Clinevol98 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- clinevol98
- Minor League
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:45 pm
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest