Father of Apocalyptic Christian Zionism- Hal Lindsey

[norwegen]

Scofield was hired by Samuel Untermyer who also published the Scofield Bible.

I've long been curious about some of the mechanics involved. In particular the details surrounding the old testament being included in the christian bible

Its sort of a progression. Jesus wasn't the Messiah the Jews had expected. He was NOT an anointed warrior king who would vanquish the enemies of the Jews. The government never rested on his shoulders.

Nonetheless Jesus was definitely very special. I think later writers embroidered his story which religion seems to have always done.. exaggerating everything..... and fiddling with the OT to make Jesus "fit" the Jewish prophecies.

IMO you can't dismiss Jesus as the bastard son of a Roman soldier and you can't claim the Jews got it all wrong. Clearly Jesus was an important Holy man.. a messenger if you can get your head around that concept.

I'm Christian by heritage and by choice so I just accept the Jewish beliefs as well as Muslim beliefs..

Government indeed began resting on Christ's shoulder. As early as Armenia and Ethiopia, states began to recognize Christianity. The faith had become the state religion even of the Roman Empire.

The Old Testament provides the backstory, the way I see it. It tells us briefly of what went right - in the garden - and then goes on for page after page about what went wrong. "None is righteous," lamented David. "No, not one." Including David, by and by, a murderer and adulterer.

With Christianity, mankind enters into God's rest again, where he was in the garden.

 

[Infallible Arbiter]

I find it revealing that many religionists have a deep need to endlessly speculate WHEN the end times comes. The obsession that generates cults (David Koresh) and doomsday proclamations over the decades, the endless interpretations of a few lines in the book of revelations (often written in stupid and unnecessary riddles) the endless talk about the "rapture" indicating a deep seated need to believe in something.....

Why can't religionists just patiently wait quietly? leave out the silly speculations as their favorite messiah says no one knows the hour of his coming.....

Some "religionists" fulfill the duty of 'waiting',
others are more 'active'.

But it's of course not black and white, individuals are complex. And for a real "religionist", it seems these two paths should be seen, as serving the same purpose.

The 'End Times' is the End of Time - "Time No More" in Rev 10:6.

That throws christian's, atheists, and all cynics into a whirl.

You won't find me casting my pearls about what it means.

Revelation 10:6 doesn't say anything about time being no more.

And the Bible doesn't say anything about the end of time.

Yes it does, if you care to look at the greek.
Most Bibles cover it up like other deeper truths.

It's God not casting his pearls before the swine.

 

[Indeependent]

Excerpt:

End Times Dispensationalism

So what are these End Times beliefs that have converted much of the remaining Protestant establishment in American into a disastrous death cult? It’s complicated.

Christians have always believed that Jesus would one day return, but that belief started out vague, and grew steadily less important as this key event kept failing to occur. In first decades after Jesus’ crucifixion, the Apostle Paul believed that Jesus’ return was so imminent that people needn’t bother getting married. Naturally, that belief didn’t age well.

As time passed and Christians who initially thought themselves immune from death started dying, these young churches needed an explanation. New Testament writers offered a series of oblique pronouncements about an End of Days, but their attention gradually moved from the imminent return of someone who persistently failed to return, toward a focus on Heaven and the Afterlife.

One Biblical writer, influenced apparently by persecutions of Christians in the Second Century, wrote a psychedelic screed which came to be titled Revelation. To the extent that anyone can derive context or meaning from this rant, it seems to be directed squarely at the writer’s most hated targets, the Romans and the Jews.

In it Jesus is said to condemn the unbelieving Jews as the “Synagogue of Satan” and their future torments are described with sadistic color. It also imagines a series of exquisite horrors to be vengefully visited on its other main character, Rome, at the End of the World.

The Book of Revelation barely made it into our New Testament canon and the Christian belief in Jesus’s return faded into a minor element of the faith. Down through the centuries, End Times theology flared up in times of plague, disorder, or mayhem, but it remained the playground of religious zealots and outcasts, never developed with much interest by conventional theologians.

Ask an American evangelical today about Armageddon or the End of the World, and you’re likely to hear a story gleaned from popular literature that descends not from the early church or the Bible, but from the colorful imagination of a 19th century English cultist.

After being seriously injured in a fall from horse in 1827, lapsed cleric John Nelson Darby began to write down the theology God had revealed to him.

Most of his work was forgotten, and his teachings flopped entirely in Europe. However, one element of his cult mythology caught fire in the US, especially in the South. By crafting together bits and pieces of Biblical text like the disconnected words on refrigerator magnets, Darby invented a story of The End Times perfectly suited

for the needs of slaveholder religion in the South. It was called Dispensationalism.

continued

Ehh, you are a pagan. The End Times Tribulation or Time of Jacob's Trouble is for Israel's Repentance and to bring the remnant of Israel in to recognition and acceptance of Yeshua-Jesus as their Messiah.

It's 2nd fold purpose is to punish a Christ Rejecting humanity, and destroy human government and pour out The Wrath of God on The End Times Anti Christ Government, and then put an end to Evil, and establish The Millennial Kingdom of Christ on a Restored Earth.

Hal Lindsey only teaches what The Scriptures Say. And they say The Jews will suffer just as much if not more than all the other unbelievers on Earth during that time of the 7 year tribulation. 2/3rds of The Jews are killed, and only 1/3rd is saved at The End at Armageddon during Christ's return when The Jews "look upon Him whom they pierced". So how you can call 2/3rds of all Jews being slaughtered some kind of Zionism is beyond me.

70% of the World's population is wiped out in that 7 years, most of the water is poisoned, most of the fish die, 1/4 of all plant life get's burnt up, and 1/3rd of all ships are destroyed, and that is just the beginning of sorrows and curses such as The Earth has never seen.

Only The Church of Believers in Christ escape the wrath that is coming upon The Earth, and everyone else, including Jews endures God's Wrath.

The end times were the end of Temple Judaism. I'm not a pagan at all. Hal Linsey is a poor scholar, but he does base his theology on the beliefs of Cyrus Scofield who was a convicted felon and had no religious training.

The Tribulation was over in 70 AD and the new Jewish Christians fled to the mountains as Jesus told them to do. They fled Jerusalem for Pella and avoided the horrors or the tribulation.

Sorry, but you preach heresies and blasphemies, and are wrong and ignorant of prophecy. Daniel's prophecy of 490 years or 70 Week Years of 7s was accurate right until the end of the 69th week or 483 years when "Messiah would be cut off and have nothing for Himself" right down to the day it was accurate.

That means the that last 7 years determined upon Israel have been on hold since The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. This represents The Church Age and Age of The Gentiles. When that age is over, and The Age of The Gentiles is Full, The Last 7 Years will begin.

Daniel was written by a group of Jews around 164 BC, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to offer hope and encouragement to the Jews.

Antiochus was terrible. he raised an idol in the Temple (the Abomination of Desolation) forbid circumcision.... all sorts of mean crap. This was also around the time of the Maccabean Revolt. The writers set the story in the Babylonian court..

Jesus referenced Daniel when he said, "when you see the Abomination of Desolation again flee to the mountains... and they did.

It's no skin off of my nose if you perish in your heresies. Hell was made for Lucifer (Allah) and his Demons, and you are welcome to join them on Judgment Day.

Even in your lies about The Book of Daniel, you cannot explain away that prophecy being accurate right down to The Day Jesus entered Jerusalem and was ultimately "cut off" like Daniel Foretold.

Ok, so I'm not the only one seeing the cheap Islamist pretense...

I'm Episcopalian. Allah is just Arabic for God.. Remember, most prophecy was written after the fact. You should probably study Daniel. Its reaction to Antiochus IV.. Do you even know who he was?

Allah means To Ascend.

There was only One Being who said, "I will ascend" God does not need to ascend.


Isaiah 14:12-14

King James Version

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.


Allah is Satan

Which is why the word is misused by Islam.

 

[norwegen]

I find it revealing that many religionists have a deep need to endlessly speculate WHEN the end times comes. The obsession that generates cults (David Koresh) and doomsday proclamations over the decades, the endless interpretations of a few lines in the book of revelations (often written in stupid and unnecessary riddles) the endless talk about the "rapture" indicating a deep seated need to believe in something.....

Why can't religionists just patiently wait quietly? leave out the silly speculations as their favorite messiah says no one knows the hour of his coming.....

Some "religionists" fulfill the duty of 'waiting',
others are more 'active'.

But it's of course not black and white, individuals are complex. And for a real "religionist", it seems these two paths should be seen, as serving the same purpose.

The 'End Times' is the End of Time - "Time No More" in Rev 10:6.

That throws christian's, atheists, and all cynics into a whirl.

You won't find me casting my pearls about what it means.

Revelation 10:6 doesn't say anything about time being no more.

And the Bible doesn't say anything about the end of time.

Yes it does, if you care to look at the greek.
Most Bibles cover it up like other deeper truths.

It's God not casting his pearls before the swine.

No, it doesn't.

[A]nd swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay.​

~ Rev 10:6​

The only thing remotely relating to time in that verse is the imminence of the Parousia.

 

[norwegen]

Nothing is wrong with Zionism. Nothing is wrong with pride in one’s culture and heritage. Christian Zionism, on the other hand, is abominable doctrine. It assumes that God has two concurrent covenants with humanity, which absolutely and unequivocally contradicts the Scriptures.

Losing its temple and numbering too few to regroup or rebuild after the Jewish-Roman Wars, or being too devastated to do so, the ancient Jewish state lost virtually all viability as a nation. Jews could only claim land for themselves some 1900 years later thanks to a United Nations mandate, and this new claim has little if any connection to the nation’s ancient, temple-era past. Modern Israel is a political state that has yet to rebuild any temple, or even draft any plans to. Citizens of this new nation are no different than citizens of any other nation or group that rejects Christianity. They are not evil puppeteers controlling currencies or the world’s affairs. They are not a hive-minded cabal who conspire to cheat their way to success. They are just flesh-and-blood human beings without any special dispensation from God. To claim that they are is to espouse a dual-covenant doctrine, which is heresy. Not once did Jesus and the apostles claim that God was instituting two concurrent covenants: one for Jews and one for Christians.

The state of Israel cannot possibly be restored to its former temple-era condition. Not without violating the gospel message, anyway. Jesus and the apostles condemned circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other temple rituals. If by some fluke an edifice were erected in the modern state of Israel to serve as a temple and a priesthood installed therein, it would not reflect the temple and priesthood of old. It could not. For one, international laws in the modern era won’t allow for it. Also, the Levite clan no longer exists. And most significant, if the ancient temple and priesthood were rebuilt, it would be a regression back to the Old Covenant, which the apostles warned against, most notably in the letter to the Hebrews. They lamented efforts at Judaizing the Christian church. The new creation and eternal nature of the gospel falsifies Christian Zionism and any such restoration doctrine.

 

[Infallible Arbiter]

I find it revealing that many religionists have a deep need to endlessly speculate WHEN the end times comes. The obsession that generates cults (David Koresh) and doomsday proclamations over the decades, the endless interpretations of a few lines in the book of revelations (often written in stupid and unnecessary riddles) the endless talk about the "rapture" indicating a deep seated need to believe in something.....

Why can't religionists just patiently wait quietly? leave out the silly speculations as their favorite messiah says no one knows the hour of his coming.....

Some "religionists" fulfill the duty of 'waiting',
others are more 'active'.

But it's of course not black and white, individuals are complex. And for a real "religionist", it seems these two paths should be seen, as serving the same purpose.

The 'End Times' is the End of Time - "Time No More" in Rev 10:6.

That throws christian's, atheists, and all cynics into a whirl.

You won't find me casting my pearls about what it means.

Revelation 10:6 doesn't say anything about time being no more.

And the Bible doesn't say anything about the end of time.

Yes it does, if you care to look at the greek.
Most Bibles cover it up like other deeper truths.

It's God not casting his pearls before the swine.

No, it doesn't.

[A]nd swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay.​

~ Rev 10:6​

The only thing remotely relating to time is the imminence of the Parousia.

You're instantly discredited by quoting another mistranslation.
Imagine that.

 

[norwegen]

I find it revealing that many religionists have a deep need to endlessly speculate WHEN the end times comes. The obsession that generates cults (David Koresh) and doomsday proclamations over the decades, the endless interpretations of a few lines in the book of revelations (often written in stupid and unnecessary riddles) the endless talk about the "rapture" indicating a deep seated need to believe in something.....

Why can't religionists just patiently wait quietly? leave out the silly speculations as their favorite messiah says no one knows the hour of his coming.....

Some "religionists" fulfill the duty of 'waiting',
others are more 'active'.

But it's of course not black and white, individuals are complex. And for a real "religionist", it seems these two paths should be seen, as serving the same purpose.

The 'End Times' is the End of Time - "Time No More" in Rev 10:6.

That throws christian's, atheists, and all cynics into a whirl.

You won't find me casting my pearls about what it means.

Revelation 10:6 doesn't say anything about time being no more.

And the Bible doesn't say anything about the end of time.

Yes it does, if you care to look at the greek.
Most Bibles cover it up like other deeper truths.

It's God not casting his pearls before the swine.

No, it doesn't.

[A]nd swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay.​

~ Rev 10:6​

The only thing remotely relating to time is the imminence of the Parousia.

You're instantly discredited by quoting another mistranslation.
Imagine that.

You're instantly discredited by your non-answer.

And the translations you quote.

 

[Infallible Arbiter]

I find it revealing that many religionists have a deep need to endlessly speculate WHEN the end times comes. The obsession that generates cults (David Koresh) and doomsday proclamations over the decades, the endless interpretations of a few lines in the book of revelations (often written in stupid and unnecessary riddles) the endless talk about the "rapture" indicating a deep seated need to believe in something.....

Why can't religionists just patiently wait quietly? leave out the silly speculations as their favorite messiah says no one knows the hour of his coming.....

Some "religionists" fulfill the duty of 'waiting',
others are more 'active'.

But it's of course not black and white, individuals are complex. And for a real "religionist", it seems these two paths should be seen, as serving the same purpose.

The 'End Times' is the End of Time - "Time No More" in Rev 10:6.

That throws christian's, atheists, and all cynics into a whirl.

You won't find me casting my pearls about what it means.

Revelation 10:6 doesn't say anything about time being no more.

And the Bible doesn't say anything about the end of time.

Yes it does, if you care to look at the greek.
Most Bibles cover it up like other deeper truths.

It's God not casting his pearls before the swine.

No, it doesn't.

[A]nd swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay.​

~ Rev 10:6​

The only thing remotely relating to time is the imminence of the Parousia.

You're instantly discredited by quoting another mistranslation.
Imagine that.

You're instantly discredited by your non-answer.

And the translations you quote.

Feel free to expound upon the greek -
Shit or get off the pot.

 

[norwegen]

Feel free to expound upon the greek -
Shit or get off the pot.

What do you want me to expound on, exactly? The word delay?

You brought up the verse; you expound on it. No need to get angry.

 

[Infallible Arbiter]

Feel free to expound upon the greek -
Shit or get off the pot.

What do you want me to expound on, exactly? The word delay?

You brought up the verse; you expound on it. No need to get angry.

Angry? This is the fun of child's play for me.
Are you really that obtuse?
Delay is not the greek word, it's the mistranslation from the minds of decomposing mortals.

At this point, not only your fear but your arrogance, will not consider what the greek says, maybe you don't know how to find it.

 

[norwegen]

Feel free to expound upon the greek -
Shit or get off the pot.

What do you want me to expound on, exactly? The word delay?

You brought up the verse; you expound on it. No need to get angry.

Angry? This is the fun of child's play for me.
Are you really that obtuse?
Delay is not the greek word, it's the mistranslation from the minds of decomposing mortals.

At this point, not only your fear but your arrogance, will not consider what the greek says, maybe you don't know how to find it.

Yes, I am that obtuse.

How does Revelation 10:6 say that time will come to an end?

 

[Infallible Arbiter]

Feel free to expound upon the greek -
Shit or get off the pot.

What do you want me to expound on, exactly? The word delay?

You brought up the verse; you expound on it. No need to get angry.

Angry? This is the fun of child's play for me.
Are you really that obtuse?
Delay is not the greek word, it's the mistranslation from the minds of decomposing mortals.

At this point, not only your fear but your arrogance, will not consider what the greek says, maybe you don't know how to find it.

Yes, I am that obtuse.

How does Revelation 10:6 say that time will come to an end?

How?
You'd have to understand what the "Seven Thunders" are in Rev 10:1-4 - You're not ready for that either.

 

[norwegen]

Feel free to expound upon the greek -
Shit or get off the pot.

What do you want me to expound on, exactly? The word delay?

You brought up the verse; you expound on it. No need to get angry.

Angry? This is the fun of child's play for me.
Are you really that obtuse?
Delay is not the greek word, it's the mistranslation from the minds of decomposing mortals.

At this point, not only your fear but your arrogance, will not consider what the greek says, maybe you don't know how to find it.

Yes, I am that obtuse.

How does Revelation 10:6 say that time will come to an end?

How?
You'd have to understand what the "Seven Thunders" are in Rev 10:1-4 - You're not ready for that either.

Maybe others in this thread are ready for it.

If not, then by all means, don't answer.

 

[irosie91]

But the line passed through Issac, not Ishmael.

Incorrect ...
The line and blessings were passed on to both Issac and Ishmael.

Possibly true-------Ishmael was a jew and remained literate. Somehow his family give up letters and became criminal nomads (????)

 

[rylah]

Nothing is wrong with Zionism. Nothing is wrong with pride in one’s culture and heritage. Christian Zionism, on the other hand, is abominable doctrine. It assumes that God has two concurrent covenants with humanity, which absolutely and unequivocally contradicts the Scriptures.

Losing its temple and numbering too few to regroup or rebuild after the Jewish-Roman Wars, or being too devastated to do so, the ancient Jewish state lost virtually all viability as a nation. Jews could only claim land for themselves some 1900 years later thanks to a United Nations mandate, and this new claim has little if any connection to the nation’s ancient, temple-era past. Modern Israel is a political state that has yet to rebuild any temple, or even draft any plans to. Citizens of this new nation are no different than citizens of any other nation or group that rejects Christianity. They are not evil puppeteers controlling currencies or the world’s affairs. They are not a hive-minded cabal who conspire to cheat their way to success. They are just flesh-and-blood human beings without any special dispensation from God. To claim that they are is to espouse a dual-covenant doctrine, which is heresy. Not once did Jesus and the apostles claim that God was instituting two concurrent covenants: one for Jews and one for Christians.

The state of Israel cannot possibly be restored to its former temple-era condition. Not without violating the gospel message, anyway. Jesus and the apostles condemned circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other temple rituals. If by some fluke an edifice were erected in the modern state of Israel to serve as a temple and a priesthood installed therein, it would not reflect the temple and priesthood of old. It could not. For one, international laws in the modern era won’t allow for it. Also, the Levite clan no longer exists. And most significant, if the ancient temple and priesthood were rebuilt, it would be a regression back to the Old Covenant, which the apostles warned against, most notably in the letter to the Hebrews. They lamented efforts at Judaizing the Christian church. The new creation and eternal nature of the gospel falsifies Christian Zionism and any such restoration doctrine.

It was very curious to read that well written explanation, but at the same time in amazement at the what appears clarity of thought, followed by totally fallacious, absurd presumptions,
of magnitude I've never realized. A mere peek at the extent of how much the church has
been messing with the people's head selling them Rome for generations.

I was curious about those outlandish presumptions,
but not sure I want to dwell any further on such a mess.

 

[rylah]

But the line passed through Issac, not Ishmael.

Incorrect ...
The line and blessings were passed on to both Issac and Ishmael.

Possibly true-------Ishmael was a jew and remained literate. Somehow his family give up letters and became criminal nomads (????)

What do You mean by 'Ishmael was a jew'?

Israel was a tent dweller, i.e. life dedicated to education.
Ishmael was a hunter dwelling in the wilderness, as much as Esau.
Of course they couldn't come from the house of Avraham Avinu A"H and be illiterate.
Literacy wasn't much an achievement in that house, around others who studied with Shem.

More so most likely, in that contrast they stood out as almost adopted,
if education is what you mean by 'Ishmael was a jew'...

 

[norwegen]

Nothing is wrong with Zionism. Nothing is wrong with pride in one’s culture and heritage. Christian Zionism, on the other hand, is abominable doctrine. It assumes that God has two concurrent covenants with humanity, which absolutely and unequivocally contradicts the Scriptures.

Losing its temple and numbering too few to regroup or rebuild after the Jewish-Roman Wars, or being too devastated to do so, the ancient Jewish state lost virtually all viability as a nation. Jews could only claim land for themselves some 1900 years later thanks to a United Nations mandate, and this new claim has little if any connection to the nation’s ancient, temple-era past. Modern Israel is a political state that has yet to rebuild any temple, or even draft any plans to. Citizens of this new nation are no different than citizens of any other nation or group that rejects Christianity. They are not evil puppeteers controlling currencies or the world’s affairs. They are not a hive-minded cabal who conspire to cheat their way to success. They are just flesh-and-blood human beings without any special dispensation from God. To claim that they are is to espouse a dual-covenant doctrine, which is heresy. Not once did Jesus and the apostles claim that God was instituting two concurrent covenants: one for Jews and one for Christians.

The state of Israel cannot possibly be restored to its former temple-era condition. Not without violating the gospel message, anyway. Jesus and the apostles condemned circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other temple rituals. If by some fluke an edifice were erected in the modern state of Israel to serve as a temple and a priesthood installed therein, it would not reflect the temple and priesthood of old. It could not. For one, international laws in the modern era won’t allow for it. Also, the Levite clan no longer exists. And most significant, if the ancient temple and priesthood were rebuilt, it would be a regression back to the Old Covenant, which the apostles warned against, most notably in the letter to the Hebrews. They lamented efforts at Judaizing the Christian church. The new creation and eternal nature of the gospel falsifies Christian Zionism and any such restoration doctrine.

It was very curious to read that well written explanation, but at the same time in amazement at the what appears clarity of thought, followed by totally fallacious, absurd presumptions,
of magnitude I've never realized. A mere peek at the extent of how much the church has
been messing with the people's head selling them Rome for generations.

I was curious about those outlandish presumptions,
but not sure I want to dwell any further on such a mess.

Like the OP implies, Christian Zionism is a relatively young movement, starting maybe in the 1700s. It certainly isn't in the Bible.

Hal Linsey, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the like seem singularly focused, i.e., they ignore so much of the Bible. And indeed even make up their own theology.

 

[rylah]

Nothing is wrong with Zionism. Nothing is wrong with pride in one’s culture and heritage. Christian Zionism, on the other hand, is abominable doctrine. It assumes that God has two concurrent covenants with humanity, which absolutely and unequivocally contradicts the Scriptures.

Losing its temple and numbering too few to regroup or rebuild after the Jewish-Roman Wars, or being too devastated to do so, the ancient Jewish state lost virtually all viability as a nation. Jews could only claim land for themselves some 1900 years later thanks to a United Nations mandate, and this new claim has little if any connection to the nation’s ancient, temple-era past. Modern Israel is a political state that has yet to rebuild any temple, or even draft any plans to. Citizens of this new nation are no different than citizens of any other nation or group that rejects Christianity. They are not evil puppeteers controlling currencies or the world’s affairs. They are not a hive-minded cabal who conspire to cheat their way to success. They are just flesh-and-blood human beings without any special dispensation from God. To claim that they are is to espouse a dual-covenant doctrine, which is heresy. Not once did Jesus and the apostles claim that God was instituting two concurrent covenants: one for Jews and one for Christians.

The state of Israel cannot possibly be restored to its former temple-era condition. Not without violating the gospel message, anyway. Jesus and the apostles condemned circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other temple rituals. If by some fluke an edifice were erected in the modern state of Israel to serve as a temple and a priesthood installed therein, it would not reflect the temple and priesthood of old. It could not. For one, international laws in the modern era won’t allow for it. Also, the Levite clan no longer exists. And most significant, if the ancient temple and priesthood were rebuilt, it would be a regression back to the Old Covenant, which the apostles warned against, most notably in the letter to the Hebrews. They lamented efforts at Judaizing the Christian church. The new creation and eternal nature of the gospel falsifies Christian Zionism and any such restoration doctrine.

It was very curious to read that well written explanation, but at the same time in amazement at the what appears clarity of thought, followed by totally fallacious, absurd presumptions,
of magnitude I've never realized. A mere peek at the extent of how much the church has
been messing with the people's head selling them Rome for generations.

I was curious about those outlandish presumptions,
but not sure I want to dwell any further on such a mess.

Like the OP implies, Christian Zionism is a relatively young movement, starting maybe in the 1700s. It certainly isn't in the Bible.

Hal Linsey, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the like seem singularly focused, i.e., they ignore so much of the Bible. And indeed even make up their own theology.

So now the "Bible is not Zionist"...
And the church floor proves the earth is flat as well?

 

[norwegen]

Nothing is wrong with Zionism. Nothing is wrong with pride in one’s culture and heritage. Christian Zionism, on the other hand, is abominable doctrine. It assumes that God has two concurrent covenants with humanity, which absolutely and unequivocally contradicts the Scriptures.

Losing its temple and numbering too few to regroup or rebuild after the Jewish-Roman Wars, or being too devastated to do so, the ancient Jewish state lost virtually all viability as a nation. Jews could only claim land for themselves some 1900 years later thanks to a United Nations mandate, and this new claim has little if any connection to the nation’s ancient, temple-era past. Modern Israel is a political state that has yet to rebuild any temple, or even draft any plans to. Citizens of this new nation are no different than citizens of any other nation or group that rejects Christianity. They are not evil puppeteers controlling currencies or the world’s affairs. They are not a hive-minded cabal who conspire to cheat their way to success. They are just flesh-and-blood human beings without any special dispensation from God. To claim that they are is to espouse a dual-covenant doctrine, which is heresy. Not once did Jesus and the apostles claim that God was instituting two concurrent covenants: one for Jews and one for Christians.

The state of Israel cannot possibly be restored to its former temple-era condition. Not without violating the gospel message, anyway. Jesus and the apostles condemned circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other temple rituals. If by some fluke an edifice were erected in the modern state of Israel to serve as a temple and a priesthood installed therein, it would not reflect the temple and priesthood of old. It could not. For one, international laws in the modern era won’t allow for it. Also, the Levite clan no longer exists. And most significant, if the ancient temple and priesthood were rebuilt, it would be a regression back to the Old Covenant, which the apostles warned against, most notably in the letter to the Hebrews. They lamented efforts at Judaizing the Christian church. The new creation and eternal nature of the gospel falsifies Christian Zionism and any such restoration doctrine.

It was very curious to read that well written explanation, but at the same time in amazement at the what appears clarity of thought, followed by totally fallacious, absurd presumptions,
of magnitude I've never realized. A mere peek at the extent of how much the church has
been messing with the people's head selling them Rome for generations.

I was curious about those outlandish presumptions,
but not sure I want to dwell any further on such a mess.

Like the OP implies, Christian Zionism is a relatively young movement, starting maybe in the 1700s. It certainly isn't in the Bible.

Hal Linsey, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the like seem singularly focused, i.e., they ignore so much of the Bible. And indeed even make up their own theology.

So now the Bible is not Zionist?

The Old Testament is, maybe. It isn't Christian Zionist, though.

 

[irosie91]

Nothing is wrong with Zionism. Nothing is wrong with pride in one’s culture and heritage. Christian Zionism, on the other hand, is abominable doctrine. It assumes that God has two concurrent covenants with humanity, which absolutely and unequivocally contradicts the Scriptures.

Losing its temple and numbering too few to regroup or rebuild after the Jewish-Roman Wars, or being too devastated to do so, the ancient Jewish state lost virtually all viability as a nation. Jews could only claim land for themselves some 1900 years later thanks to a United Nations mandate, and this new claim has little if any connection to the nation’s ancient, temple-era past. Modern Israel is a political state that has yet to rebuild any temple, or even draft any plans to. Citizens of this new nation are no different than citizens of any other nation or group that rejects Christianity. They are not evil puppeteers controlling currencies or the world’s affairs. They are not a hive-minded cabal who conspire to cheat their way to success. They are just flesh-and-blood human beings without any special dispensation from God. To claim that they are is to espouse a dual-covenant doctrine, which is heresy. Not once did Jesus and the apostles claim that God was instituting two concurrent covenants: one for Jews and one for Christians.

The state of Israel cannot possibly be restored to its former temple-era condition. Not without violating the gospel message, anyway. Jesus and the apostles condemned circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other temple rituals. If by some fluke an edifice were erected in the modern state of Israel to serve as a temple and a priesthood installed therein, it would not reflect the temple and priesthood of old. It could not. For one, international laws in the modern era won’t allow for it. Also, the Levite clan no longer exists. And most significant, if the ancient temple and priesthood were rebuilt, it would be a regression back to the Old Covenant, which the apostles warned against, most notably in the letter to the Hebrews. They lamented efforts at Judaizing the Christian church. The new creation and eternal nature of the gospel falsifies Christian Zionism and any such restoration doctrine.

It was very curious to read that well written explanation, but at the same time in amazement at the what appears clarity of thought, followed by totally fallacious, absurd presumptions,
of magnitude I've never realized. A mere peek at the extent of how much the church has
been messing with the people's head selling them Rome for generations.

I was curious about those outlandish presumptions,
but not sure I want to dwell any further on such a mess.

Like the OP implies, Christian Zionism is a relatively young movement, starting maybe in the 1700s. It certainly isn't in the Bible.

Hal Linsey, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the like seem singularly focused, i.e., they ignore so much of the Bible. And indeed even make up their own theology.

So now the Bible is not Zionist?

ask any islamo-nazi. It's a FORGERY