What ever happened to the good ol' Reformation view of the papacy?
http://www.historicism.net/readingmater ... papacy.pdf
http://www.historicism.net/readingmater ... papacy.pdf
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
The Anti-Christ: The Papacy
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
Vic C.
Member
Rats, I knew there was something I forgot to reinstall... my Adobe PDF Reader. :o
Anyways, I abandoned the 'Papacy is the antichrist' because my studies revealed to me a Pope just doesn't fit all the qualifucations of The Antichrist. Papacy does fit into the second beast/false prophet role rather nicely though.
Just my opinion.
Anyways, I abandoned the 'Papacy is the antichrist' because my studies revealed to me a Pope just doesn't fit all the qualifucations of The Antichrist. Papacy does fit into the second beast/false prophet role rather nicely though.
Just my opinion.
C
CatholicXian
Guest
It's inaccurate. ;-)JM said:
Nearly every historical commentary on the Scriptures, and nearly every scholarly commentary on the Bible will tell you how the early Christians expected the Parousia to occur in their lifetime. The papacy, as it exists today, was not as developed as it is today during that time and it is highly unprobable that the writers of Sacred Scripture were referring to the Papacy...
Besides, there are many other candidates who fit the bill much better: Caligula, Nero, etc. Most commentaries will point you to them, not the Papacy.
G
Georges
Guest
Of course the false messiah will be a false messiah for the Jews...not the Christians...after all he will sit in the temple proclaiming to be God. That is Jewish eschatology.
He is not an antiChrist so much as he really should be considered a pseudo or false messiah (Jewish terms).
The false prophet is that .....a pseudo prophet....a pseudo or false Elijah.
It's a game of counterfeits.....even the mark of the beast is a counterfeit of the mark of God on the 144000.
He is not an antiChrist so much as he really should be considered a pseudo or false messiah (Jewish terms).
The false prophet is that .....a pseudo prophet....a pseudo or false Elijah.
It's a game of counterfeits.....even the mark of the beast is a counterfeit of the mark of God on the 144000.
C
CatholicXian
Guest
:smt081Vic said:
Vic C.
Member
Sure. George alluded to it. Part of how I would determine antichrist (false messiah) is by looking at Ezekiel 38 (gog) and I also use Antiochus as the "prototype" antichrist. Military strength and being a military leader is one of several requirements of The Antichrist. Geneology (ancestry) are important as well.
I think (and I could be wrong) the 'pope as antichrist' may have been propagated by Luther's disdain for the Papacy. Strange though, as he wasn't very fond of 'Revelation',
I think (and I could be wrong) the 'pope as antichrist' may have been propagated by Luther's disdain for the Papacy. Strange though, as he wasn't very fond of 'Revelation',
P
preterist
Guest
I wonder why????
We could let scripture tell us what “antichrist†is.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
So what “antichrist†are we suppose to be looking for and what “last time†was John living in?
Vic said:
I don't think you can deny the military power the papacy held in the past, consider this, Dan 7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. See also 8:20
The result of pagan Rome’s fall in 476ad was the formation of ten kingdoms (yes 10 kingdoms). There were: Alamannis now Germany, Visigoths now Spain, Franks now France, Sueves now Portugal, Burgundians now Switzerland, Anglo Saxons now England, Lombards now Italy, Ostrogoths, Vandal and the Herulis. The Roman Church at this time was both a religious instatue and a political machine, and Daniel is telling us that when pagan Rome fell it would split into ten separate kingdoms. This has already happened. You’ll notice the last three on the list no longer exist and were ‘subdued’ if you will. Ostrogoths, Vandals and the Herulis all rejected the offer to convert to the Roman faith.
I read a lot of historical fiction where the story line is factual but the dialog isn't. I remember reading about this several times, very interesting. I'll think on the ancestry of gog issue.
Nahhhh, it was Waldo and the Waldensians (spelling, it's getting late) that first ided the pope as antichrist. John Wycliff followed, and so on. I think it goes as far back as the Donatists.
G
Georges
Guest
We could let scripture tell us what “antichrist†is.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
So what “antichrist†are we suppose to be looking for and what “last time†was John living in?[/quote:075e0]
Big difference in being "Anti-Christ", and being a "False Messiah"....one is against Christ and everything he stands for, the other Claims to be Christ...and attempts to fool the people into thinking that he is Christ.....
Big...Big....Bigggg difference.....
Even in Judaism....it is tradition that the AC will proclaim himself to be the Messiah....They won't buy it and as a result will flee to the Mountains....Why? because the future Jews will see through his claim....
Not Anti Christ.....False messiah.......
[/quote]
P
preterist
Guest
Trouble is, your "Anti-Christ" is mentioned nowhere in scripture. The term "anti-christ" is found only in I and II John.
G
Georges
Guest
preterist said:
Dude...even in Jewish eschatology the false messiah has a name....it's Armilus if you care to do the research on it. 8-)
P
preterist
Guest
I don't need to read Strong's for a definition of antichrist. John did it for us.
1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.
Which scriptures speak of a coming False Messiah?
Paul's "man of sin" seems to already be alive when Paul writes:
2Th 2:3 let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
2Th 2:4 he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.
Would your beast of Rev 13 be the same beast of Dan. 7?
Dan 7:7 After this I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
So what exactly is your proof that the beast, little horn, antichrist, false Messiah, and man of sin are all the same person? Other than Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe of course.
1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.
Which scriptures speak of a coming False Messiah?
Paul's "man of sin" seems to already be alive when Paul writes:
2Th 2:3 let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
2Th 2:4 he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.
Would your beast of Rev 13 be the same beast of Dan. 7?
Dan 7:7 After this I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
So what exactly is your proof that the beast, little horn, antichrist, false Messiah, and man of sin are all the same person? Other than Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe of course.
G
Georges
Guest
preterist said:I don't need to read Strong's for a definition of antichrist. John did it for us.
Yeh...why use the Strong's when you can make your own up....right? Preterist's crack me up:angel:
1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already.
Which scriptures speak of a coming False Messiah?
Paul's "man of sin" seems to already be alive when Paul writes:
That's not true....and it ain't Nero...he doesn't fit.
2Th 2:3 let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
Falling away in the earliest bibles state "departure" as in "Rapture". This verse is a carry over from 2 Thes 2:1 and the gathering unto Christ.
2Th 2:4 he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.
Hasn't happened yet....will during the tribulation temple period....sorry, I forgot...preterist's insist there will be no more temples built. So it must have happened already (70 AD?) ....
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.
Would your beast of Rev 13 be the same beast of Dan. 7?
Dan 7:7 After this I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
Yes...it is the little horn of Dan 7.
So what exactly is your proof that the beast, little horn, antichrist, false Messiah, and man of sin are all the same person? Other than Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe of course.
Thanks for typing in large fonts....I am getting older and when you do that, I don't have to wear my reading glasses..... :wink:
My friend....I'm well aware of their views of HL and JVI.....the difference between them and I.....I use Jewish eschatology as the basis for most of my opinion in the prophecy forum...they use less....
Two things Preterist......
1. Before I read your post, I just put down a book found in any Christian bookstore...the title "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" Edited by David Bercot. In this book it details the Early Church fathers opinions on many different subjects....
Concerning the subject of the AntiChrist there are no fewer than 23 references found on pages 23-25 by no less than 9 different Early Church Fathers....ranging from Justin Martyr (ca 165 AD) - Lactantius (ca 310 AD)
In essence, each one of these quotes regard the AC as a future literal person both descended from the Tribe of Dan and a citizen of the Roman Empire. Where do you suppose they got that from? Don't think Hal Lindsey or Jack Van Impe were around back then to advise them.... :P
I've given you the resource.... it's up to you to refute them. They do quote scripture if you want to research that.
2. This website provides the resources claiming the False Messiah as a literal character of the future.....
http://www.ramsheadpress.com/messiah/ch23.html
If you care to research it more in depth from a Jewish perspective....and the AC is a Jewish not a Christian concept, please acquire "The Messiah Texts" by Dr. Raphel Patai. This book has amassed every bit of information in Judacia concerning both the Messiah and false messiah and is a great reference to have in your library.
Judging by your first statement I doubt if you will look into any of the references that I have presented....I hope I'm wrong in my assumption. If so, I would love to hear your rebuttal on them.
<< Intermezzo >> Another related question:
Does the prince share the same logo designer with TBN and a
cigarette company? Or is it the mind set?
Look at these three coats of arm. Do you see any similarities?
http://www.apostasyalert.org/REFLECTIONS/TBN%20Logo.htm
<< End of Intermezzo, back to the Pope, hey he's german, watch out! >>
Does the prince share the same logo designer with TBN and a
cigarette company? Or is it the mind set?
Look at these three coats of arm. Do you see any similarities?
http://www.apostasyalert.org/REFLECTIONS/TBN%20Logo.htm
<< End of Intermezzo, back to the Pope, hey he's german, watch out! >>
P
preterist
Guest
Did I make up my own or did I quote John? Is this the mentality you use to debate?
Never said it was Nero.
So “falling away†actually means “flying into the air� Interesting. Can you point me to any commentaries pre-Darby that hold to this view?
Since you are a fan of Strong's, just how do you get rapture from apostasy?
G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasyâ€Â): - falling away, forsake.
You’re learning.
But many commentators acknowledge the fourth beast of Daniel to be the Roman Empire.
Adam Clarke:
Dan 7:7 -
I saw - a fourth beast - it had great iron teeth - This is allowed, on all hands, to be the Roman empire.
John Wesley:
Dan 7:7 - A fourth beast - The Roman empire.
The Reformers in the Geneva Bible:
Dan 7:7 - After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a (l) fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great (m) iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped (n) the residue with the feet of it: and it [was] diverse from all the beasts that [were] before it; and it had (o) ten horns.
(l) That is, the Roman empire which was a monster, and could not be compared to any beast, because there was no beast that was even comparable.
That makes the beast of Revelation Rome.
Since “antichrist†is the fourth beast in your view, who were the preceding three?
Perhaps biblical eschatology would be more useful.
Well the Roman Empire no longer exists. So much for their opinions.
Not interested in reading other web-sites, I grew up in the dispie world, just waiting for your scripture verse for the coming False Messiah.
Yes, and John corrects their false notion:
1Jo 2:18 Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many--whence we know that it is the last hour;
Not one antichrist, many, and they are already here. So what “last hour†is John referring to?
I know what, lets stick with scripture or you can paste and copy what you think is relevant.
G
Georges
Guest
preterist said:
Did I make up my own or did I quote John? Is this the mentality you use to debate?
No....I just know the Preterist mentality....
[quote:99391]That's not true....and it ain't Nero...he doesn't fit.
Never said it was Nero.
Sorry....It was just a shot at Preterists in general...Preterists generally consider Nero as the popluar choice for the antichrist...don't they?
So “falling away†actually means “flying into the air� Interesting. Can you point me to any commentaries pre-Darby that hold to this view?
No "falling away" is the way an Amillenialist would translate the passage instead of using departure as being the best candidate. No I don't have any pre-Darby commentaries....but here is a reference from the Wikipedia.com concerning Apostasy that supports my claim.....
.....The apostasy can alternatively be interpreted as the pre-tribulation Rapture of the Church. This is because apostasy means departure (translated so in the first seven English translations). Dr. Thomas Ice, Pre-Trib Perspective, March 2004, Vol.8, No.11.
and from http://www.raptureready.com/featured/Th ... l#_ednref1
...Translation History
.........The first seven English translations of apostasia all rendered the noun as either " departure" or " departing." They are as follows: Wycliffe Bible (1384); Tyndale Bible (1526); Coverdale Bible (1535); Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583); Geneva Bible (1608).[5] This supports the notion that the word truly means " departure." In fact, Jerome' s Latin translation known as the Vulgate from around the time of a.d. 400 renders apostasia with the " word discessio, meaning ' departure.' " [6] Why was the King James Version the first to depart from the established translation of " departure" ?
Since you are a fan of Strong's, just how do you get rapture from apostasy?
Not a fan...just use it among other references as a tool......
Here is another site that breaks down how Apostacia could very well mean departure.....sorry about the link paste...it would be too long for me to cut and paste here on the post. According to this paper there are 4 different posibilities for the meaning of Apostacia.
http://www.conservativeonline.org/journ ... 5_id05.htm
G646
ἀποστασία
apostasia
ap-os-tas-ee'-ah
Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasyâ€Â): - falling away, forsake.
Well.....nicely done......
You’re learning.
Always learning.... :fadein: the more I learn, the more I find preterist's unlearned but very clever, but I really don't want to get into a spittin match with you. We should be objectively learning together.
But many commentators acknowledge the fourth beast of Daniel to be the Roman Empire.
I have no problem with that.....I see it as being a revived Roman Empire(feet of iron and clay), a future kingdom that includes all or part of the ancient Roman Empire. The language following clearly indicates that the beast (little horn) will be destroyed and Messiah will rule the Messianic Millennial kingdom. Same thing happens in Rev...which was written AD 90's and not 70's.
Adam Clarke:
Dan 7:7 -
I saw - a fourth beast - it had great iron teeth - This is allowed, on all hands, to be the Roman empire.
John Wesley:
Dan 7:7 - A fourth beast - The Roman empire.
The Reformers in the Geneva Bible:
Dan 7:7 - After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a (l) fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great (m) iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped (n) the residue with the feet of it: and it [was] diverse from all the beasts that [were] before it; and it had (o) ten horns.
(l) That is, the Roman empire which was a monster, and could not be compared to any beast, because there was no beast that was even comparable.
That makes the beast of Revelation Rome.
You are suggesting something that will take a while to rebut....Why? In a nutshell, basically it is because the beast of Revelation is a Hebrew concept. The beast of Revelation 13 is the Leviathan of the OT...in Jewish mythology, Leviathan was a 7 headed sea monster. In the OT it was equated with Pharoah and Egypt.
I agree sort of.....Just as Leviathan represented Pharoah and Pharoah represented Egypt, the Sea Beast of Revelation is the False messiah who represents his kingdom (revived Roman Empire?).
and...in Jewish eschatology, at the beginning of the Messianic Millennium, "Leviathan" will be destroyed. According to Jewish eschatology, the Messianic Millennium is the last 1000 years of the 7000 years of man's lease on the earth.
Since “antichrist†is the fourth beast in your view, who were the preceding three?
I go with the traditional Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek and Rome.....with the understanding that Rome will rise again (EU prehaps?).
Perhaps biblical eschatology would be more useful.
That's just what I said...... :wink:
Well the Roman Empire no longer exists. So much for their opinions.
Neither did Israel.....oops....oh oh....Israel reappeared..... :wink: Oh I forgot...many Preterists suggest that present day Israel...isn't really Israel :-D
Not to mention that fact that the quotes to which I referred you to, and you didn't bother to look up are from the Christian father's. Hint....these men spoke on the subject well after the fall of Jerusalem, and the reign of the 1st Century Ceasars.....and spoke of the AC as a "FUTURE EVENT".....
Not interested in reading other web-sites, I grew up in the dispie world, just waiting for your scripture verse for the coming False Messiah.
Then we have no more debate......you choose not to examine what I had presented....you are limiting yourself.
Yes, and John corrects their false notion:
1Jo 2:18 Little youths, it is the last hour; and even as ye heard that the antichrist doth come, even now antichrists have become many--whence we know that it is the last hour;
Not one antichrist, many, and they are already here. So what “last hour†is John referring to?
The last hour.....The Apostles expected Christ to return at any moment. They did expect (as the Jews did) that Messiah would return to defeat the Romans and set up his Messianic kingdom. That hadn't happened at the penning of 1 John....When John recieved the Revelation (again 90 AD and not 70AD as most preterists try and bend that to fit their history) he was given the vision of what would happen to the False Messiah.
There are always Christ haters......but you seem to be not getting the concept that the person who appears to contend with Christ in Rev 19 is the "FALSE (pseudo) MESSIAH" not an anti (Against)Christ.
I know what, lets stick with scripture or you can paste and copy what you think is relevant.
Not interested anymore.....you limit yourself....good luck to you on future posts.
[/quote:99391]
Thanks for the dialogue and see you around the fourm...
P
preterist
Guest
I really don’t think you have a clue about preterist or preterism.
Really? What part supports your theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
So you use Thomas Ice as your source and I’m suppose to drop everything and jump on the wagon? To say that apostasy means “rapture of the saints†is beyond ridiculous. But this is what you are forced into if you are to hold to your pre-suppositions. Even John MacArthur denies this interpretation.
So I guess that makes an “apostate†one who is raptured?
I have no problem with defining it as departure, but its departure from truth not planet earth. If Paul wanted convey your rapture, he would have used a more descriptive word of the event:
G1869
ἐπαίρω
epairō
ep-ahee'-ro
From G1909 and G142; to raise up (literally or figuratively): - exalt self, poise (lift, take) up.
Just another Thomas Ice lackey. That’s all I need to know.
John M. Sweigart
House of Praise
Russellville, AR
[Editor’s note: Not all of our readers will agree with the conclusions in this paper, yet the information in it is significant relative to the verse in question. This paper was originally presented at the Pre-Trib Research Conference in December 2000. This article has been edited for publication in the CTJ.]
You seemed to have mastered the art of name-calling. But let me remind you it is I who am using scripture for my view and it is you who are using web-sites for yours.
Then why does Dan 2 only mention 4 Kingdoms and not 5? Why does Dan 7 mention only 4 beasts and not 5? The answer is obvious, because there are only 4! You have to invent the 5th in order to prop up your system. So God decides to inform us of the 4 kingdoms and the 4 beasts, but leaves up to our imagination the most important one of all? The very one, where the world as mankind has known it ends and Eternity begins, well that Kingdom/Beast, doesn’t need a lot of attention in Daniel? Foolishness.
Of course there is no scriptural evidence for this is there? I thought this nonsense would have stopped in January 2001.
Understanding? Based on what? Larkin’s Charts?
Dan 7:3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
Four, see it? Four, not four and a half, not Five, FOUR. Dispies create the fifth, the Bible doesn’t teach it. Unless you would like to show us the fifth kingdom and beast? ..........Didn’t think so.
Neither do non-preterist:
Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)
"It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .
"Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).
The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)
'The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics." (vol. 12, page 1054)
Encyclopedia Americana (1986)
"Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 16, p. 71).
Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they five" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).
Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1970)
"In 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert." (vol. 14, p. 214)
H.G. Wells
"There can be little doubt that the scattered Phoenicians in Spain and Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, speaking as they did a language closely akin to Hebrew and being deprived of their authentic political rights, became proselytes to Judaism. For phases of vigorous proselytism alternated with phases of exclusive jealousy in Jewish history. On one occasion the Idumeans, being conquered, were all forcibly made Jews. There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Thrkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples - mainly Semitic.... The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea" (The Outline of History, p. 505).
Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism. In fact, one is defined a Jew by legal dispensation or coercion, with race playing no part at all:
Put down your “Left Behind†series for awhile and actually do a study on who those people are in modern Israel.
This is laughable, you have presented nothing but web-sites. Try using scripture. God forbid your computer ever breaks; you will lose all access to your theology.
They sure did, and why? Because Jesus told them so. But if He didn’t return then it wasn’t really the “last hour†and John was wrong.
What evidence do you have for the late-dating other than notes in you LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible? Perhaps you should do a little research on the subject, start with “Before Jerusalem Fell†by Kenneth Gentry.
But judging by your previous post I doubt you will look into it.
Where is False Messiah mentioned in Rev 19? You have yet to provide scriptural reference for “False Messiahâ€Â. Is there a reason you don’t?
Of course you’re not interested. You can’t use the Bible to defend your view nor challenge mine. You want me to debate web-sites and not you. Perhaps it is good you stop, it will provide you with more time to study the Bible instead of Thomas Ice. Come back when you can stand on your own two feet.
A few notes:
-1260 years as shown by Rev.11:3 equals one prophetic day as one literal year
-until 533 ad all bishops were looked upon as equals but Emperor Justinian declared “Head of all Holy Churches, and of all Holy priests of Godâ€Â
-this decree allowed popes to rise in power
-add 1260 to 533 and we 1793
-in 1793 ad the French revolution took place which dealt a deadly blow to the power of the pope
-this revolution spread to other counties and losen the power of the pope and to this day, the papacy still has not regained the power it once had
-we know from 2 Thess. the antichrist will be slain in two phases: 1. breath of His coming (the preaching of the word during the Reformation), 2. finally with the return of Christ
-1260 years as shown by Rev.11:3 equals one prophetic day as one literal year
-until 533 ad all bishops were looked upon as equals but Emperor Justinian declared “Head of all Holy Churches, and of all Holy priests of Godâ€Â
-this decree allowed popes to rise in power
-add 1260 to 533 and we 1793
-in 1793 ad the French revolution took place which dealt a deadly blow to the power of the pope
-this revolution spread to other counties and losen the power of the pope and to this day, the papacy still has not regained the power it once had
-we know from 2 Thess. the antichrist will be slain in two phases: 1. breath of His coming (the preaching of the word during the Reformation), 2. finally with the return of Christ