Father of Apocalyptic Christian Zionism- Hal Lindsey

[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?

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

read them (OT and NT) again

 

[norwegen]

So now the Bible is not Zionist?

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

read them (OT and NT) again

What? You think the Old Testament is Christian Zionist?

 

[irosie91]

So now the Bible is not Zionist?

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

read them (OT and NT) again

What? You think the Old Testament is Christian Zionist?

the NT cites the OT as its precursor----according to christian scholars. The NT uses ZIONIST lingo thuout

 

[rylah]

 

[norwegen]

the NT cites the OT as its precursor----according to christian scholars. The NT uses ZIONIST lingo thuout

You don't say. So, you think the Old Testament is Christian Zionist, eh. You think the Old Testament is about God establishing two covenants: one with Jews and one with Christians.

read them (OT and NT) again

 

[irosie91]

I think he would favor ASHKELON

 

[irosie91]

the NT cites the OT as its precursor----according to christian scholars. The NT uses ZIONIST lingo thuout

You don't say. So, you think the Old Testament is Christian Zionist, eh. You think the Old Testament is about God establishing two covenants: one with Jews and one with Christians.

read them (OT and NT) again

nope-----that two covenant thing was a product of creative editing

 

[norwegen]

the NT cites the OT as its precursor----according to christian scholars. The NT uses ZIONIST lingo thuout

You don't say. So, you think the Old Testament is Christian Zionist, eh. You think the Old Testament is about God establishing two covenants: one with Jews and one with Christians.

read them (OT and NT) again

nope-----that two covenant thing was a product of creative editing

Then why the hell are you questioning me?

 

[irosie91]

the NT cites the OT as its precursor----according to christian scholars. The NT uses ZIONIST lingo thuout

You don't say. So, you think the Old Testament is Christian Zionist, eh. You think the Old Testament is about God establishing two covenants: one with Jews and one with Christians.

read them (OT and NT) again

nope-----that two covenant thing was a product of creative editing

Then why the hell are you questioning me?

what question did I ask you?

 

[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?

ask any islamo-nazi. It's a FORGERY

Yes they do the same invoking Spain as example of 'Muslim tolerance',
and Maimonides as Jewish approval of 'Islam's superiority',
forgetting they forced him to convert threatening death,
and deny all he ever wrote about "that madman".

That sort of overcompensation for being rejected,
and in-confidence over legitimacy is allover the Quran.

 

[rylah]

I think he would favor ASHKELON

For what purpose?

 

[irosie91]

I think he would favor ASHKELON

For what purpose?

 

[surada]

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.

Isaiah is talking about Cyrus the great not Jesus.

Isaiah’s Amazing Cyrus Prophecy — The One True God Against “the gods”

Sometime around the year 700 BC, the prophet Isaiah gave an amazing prophecy, in which he stated that God would use someone named Cyrus to deliver His people from captivity. This was fulfilled in …

mindrenewers.com

In Isaiah 45, God again names Cyrus, and gives many of the details of which I’ve been writing in this series.

 

[surada]

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'...

Maybe she means he was circumcised, but so were the Egyptians and Arabs.

 

[norwegen]

Isaiah is talking about Cyrus the great not Jesus.

Isaiah’s Amazing Cyrus Prophecy — The One True God Against “the gods”

Sometime around the year 700 BC, the prophet Isaiah gave an amazing prophecy, in which he stated that God would use someone named Cyrus to deliver His people from captivity. This was fulfilled in …

mindrenewers.com

In Isaiah 45, God again names Cyrus, and gives many of the details of which I’ve been writing in this series.

At any rate, government began resting on Christ's shoulder. States began turning Christian.

 

[surada]

Isaiah is talking about Cyrus the great not Jesus.

Isaiah’s Amazing Cyrus Prophecy — The One True God Against “the gods”

Sometime around the year 700 BC, the prophet Isaiah gave an amazing prophecy, in which he stated that God would use someone named Cyrus to deliver His people from captivity. This was fulfilled in …

mindrenewers.com

In Isaiah 45, God again names Cyrus, and gives many of the details of which I’ve been writing in this series.

At any rate, government began resting on Christ's shoulder. States began turning Christian.

Read all of Isaiah. Isaiah is talking about Israel and Cyrus.

 

[norwegen]

Read all of Isaiah. Isaiah is talking about Israel and Cyrus.

Okay, groovy. Good for Isaiah.

At any rate, according to the New Testament, government began resting on Christ's shoulders.

 

[Street Juice]

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

Jesus preached exclusively from The Old Testament so why would anyone be surprised that most of the New Testament references The Old Testament?

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

Jesus preached exclusively from The Old Testament so why would anyone be surprised that most of the New Testament references The Old Testament?

Because that's where the insanity and nonsense is

 

[Infallible Arbiter]

There is not one true prophet on Television.
They would not be allowed on those Babylonian Networks.