Link: Copy link
There again you have the conspiratorial mindset. The photos are doctored...it's all a setup to get the masses to buy a lie...Grumman Tomcat wrote: The Flat Earth stuff that the Hyper-Dispensationalists tout really gets me. How can someone in this day of air travel and space flight believe this stuff? We have thousands of pictures of the earth taken from space in the national archives. If you have flown in a plane or been on the top of a tall mountain peak, the curvature of the earth is apparent. The Book of Proverbs has a lot of say about people who are willfully foolish.
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge? - Proverbs 1:22
The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness. - Proverbs 15:2
The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness. - Proverbs 15:14
Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly. - Proverbs 16:22
Some of the reformed held to more of a historical premil viewpoint regrading end times, such as a Charles Spurgeon, so would see that national Israel at time of the Second Coming would see the living Jews receiving and turning to Jesus than...nikolai_42 wrote:Patrick, GT (and anyone else who can contribute) - is there a really good work on some of the harder prophetic utterances of the OT concerning Israel? One thing that comes to mind immediately is the so-called Russia war that Ezekiel supposedly prophesied (and is still being looked for by futurist dispensationalists). My history isn't nearly what it should be, but I don't recall anything on this (and other prophecies that don't place well, historically - such as much of Zechariah) from a non-futurist dispensationalist perspective. For my part, I am of the mind that some of the name-equivalencies they want to put on the text are already questionable. Gog and Magog, for example, are cited in Ezekiel like this :Ask Mr. Religion wrote: You are correct in your observations, GT. Seems to me that once one starts down the road of dispensational "right dividing" just about anything goes, no matter how odd the belief. Attempts to pin down ultra-dispensatinal Mid-Acts folks is about as bad as getting the Roman Catholic to be clear about what they believe.
From what I have been able to gather from reading many MAD discussions the following seem to be close to what they believe:
!. Dispensational Theology distinguishes between Israel and the Church
2. Unaware that Jesus will be crucified, the 12 preached the gospel of the kingdom
3. Isaiah chapter 53 a key focus area
4. Rightly dividing the word: A scriptural necessity
5. The new covenant did NOT begin with the birth of Christ
6. Circumcision: The TOKEN of the Abrahamic Covenant
7. The children of Israel were to SEPARATE themselves from the Gentiles
8. God promised to BLESS those who blessed Abraham's "seed", the nation of Israel
9. Gentiles were excluded from Christ's earthly ministry
10. In Acts 10, Cornelius does not portray today's salvation of Uncircumcised Gentiles
11. Even in Acts 3, Israel was STILL the "seed" through whom the nations were blessed
12. The "Great Commission", being prophetic, was interrupted
13. The "dispensation of grace": Prophecy interrupted; an unprophesied mystery begins
14. Grecians, in Acts chapters 6 and 11, were Greek-speaking JEWS, not Gentiles
15. The book of James was not written to Gentiles
16. The Apostle Paul - 14 passages which state that he is the Lord's Spokesman to the Gentiles
The talking points above sort of reminds me of the blind men and the elephant thinking there are actually parts and not one whole.
The dispensationalist's Zionism is constructed upon a novel hermeneutic in which all Scripture is generally interpreted in an ultra-literal sense; the prophetic parts of Scripture are seen as pre-written history; and eschatologically are believed to find their fulfillment in the interpreter’s generation. Despite claims by dispensationalists that their system has ancient historical precedent, the plain fact is the origin of this literalist hermeneutic can be traced to the early 19th Century and in particular to the writings of Hatley Frere, George Faber, Lewis Way, Edward Irving and those who attended the Albury conferences from 1826. [See: D. W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, A History from the 1730’s to the 1980’s, (London, Unwin Hyman, 1989), p 88; Edward Miller, The History and Doctrines of Irvingism, volume 1 (London, Kegan Paul, 1878), p 36; Lewis Way, The Latter Rain, 2nd edition (London, 1821).]
John Nelson Darby, who subsequently pioneered this hermeneutic in a more explicitly futurist and dispensational form, summed it up in one sentence when he admitted, ‘I prefer quoting many passages than enlarging upon them.’ [See: Darby, Collected Writings, edited by William Kelly (Kingston on Thames, Stow Hill Bible and Trust Depot, 1962) 11, p 363.]
Based on his commitment to literalism, Darby formulated the doctrine of Dispensationalism and the rigid distinction between Israel and the Church which forms the basis of much contemporary Christian Zionism. Following Darby closely, it was Cyrus Scofield who first distilled and codified this literalist hermeneutic.
In my opinion, Dr. John H. Gerstner's book, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, is one of the best treatments of the whole system of dispensationalism and why it is seriously wrong.
Another good read is Poythress' Understanding Dispensationalists, also available online at: https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/unde ... tionalists. Note that Poythress has found found two texts to be of particular usefulness, Heb 12:22-24, and, subordinately, 1 Cor 15:51-53, when trying to persude dispensationalists for non-dispensationalism. He spends a great deal of time explaining how such a dialog would proceed. Getting the dispensationalist to actually think about how their hermeutics function is key to unraveling them from their views. The path out of dispensationalism is usually a lengthy process, for example: https://davidwesterfield.net/2015/06/a- ... terianism/ .
Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:
....which leads many to identify them as specific nations and/or geographical regions. As I read it, there are (at least) 2 problems with that :
1. Revelation cites Gog and Magog (again, together) and it is not (clearly) the same way :
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
This is - at the very least - a reference to the nations of the world or to a specific people. Not a (modern) national or geographic entity. At best, they are identified with the descendants of Japheth.
2. Revelation cites Satan as deceiving the nations - Gog and Magog being the object of this deception. One would have to believe that Satan is only going to deceive a certain people. Revelation 18:23 and Revelation 20:3 seem to indicate that the deception is global - all those that are not written in the Lamb's book of life. So if it is an identification of a people, it seems more to be a spiritual identification. And I would think that NOT inconsistent with the way Ezekiel has already prophesied (for example) to the King and Prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 28. He speaks to the Prince of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:1-11) and to the King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:12-19). Because of the way Revelation words it, I am currently inclined to think that this could be something at the end of this age -- possibly speaking about the World Wars that we have already seen (with more to come, I would think).
But even with that, Ezekiel 28 seems to speak of Israel in a national sense. So is this something that can be viewed historically? That's part of my eschatological struggle and would love to hear from anyone who can deal with it thoroughly and convincingly. Ezekiel 38 certainly has a last days flavor about it...
It's not just conspiratorial thinking, it's a kind of reductionistic skepticism where anything I can't prove myself to my own satisfaction isn't true. It's why fundamentalists are actually less numerous in Flat Earth circles than a certain kind of atheist/agnostic.nikolai_42 wrote:There again you have the conspiratorial mindset. The photos are doctored...it's all a setup to get the masses to buy a lie...
Of course, a little bit of critical thought and a flat earth doesn't make any sense. In my line of work, if there is no earth curvature, things quickly become untenable. And even the ancients recognized a round earth. They didn't call it The Music of the Frisbees.
I wonder if flat-earthers ever go on cruise ships?
EDIT : I'm not trying to mock these people, but there is such a lack of critical thought in this sort of thing that the conspiratorialist gets so focused on one thing that they overlook the preponderance of the evidence pointing in a different direction. These kinds of questions reveal inconsistencies (and are somewhat humorous at the same time).
No one holds to traditional Christian beliefs in Western culture because they're interested in winning a popularity contest. When you start off a discussion by talking about how you're more interested in truth than popularity you're imply, however unintentionally, that your audience isn't.What I wish to bring forward now might raise some eyebrows, and might not contribute to any popularity I've enjoyed on the site to date. I can truthfully say, however, that I do not wish to clash with anyone, and I'm not disagreeable by nature. Pure, raw truth is what I always consider to be paramount. I never count heads, or accept something simply because it's popular or trendy or gets the majority consensus. I follow truth where I sincerely believe it leads, and when it pits me against others in a world-view sense, I must side with what I believe is true. At the same time I make every effort to not allow that to drive an unnecessary wedge (as in deliberately harbored hard feelings or animosity) between me and those who differ. Since we are all fallible and have our cognitive limitations, differences will inevitably arise. I know of no two people who are exactly on the same page about absolutely everything, and we clearly must make accomodations or compromises up to a reasonable point, or be somewhat indulgent with/of each other, or society breaks down, more or less, even among the tightest acquaintances.
I note that some of you have used the terms, "conspiracy theory/theorists", and "conspiratorial" in the thread, in application to, or in connection with, folk also associated with ultra-dispensationalism. I wish to say something about this particular terminology.
What I want to indicate is that we are all "conspiratorial" and we are all "conspiracy theorists" in some sense. In textbook terms a "conspiracy" has reference to a criminal act, for instance, that we know was carried out by more than one person. We may know little else about a given crime, particularly in the beginning. We may not know exactly who did what, how they conspired, why they conspired, and so on. But when a crime involving more than one person is committed, and not all the facts are in yet, we then become "conspiratorial" inasmuch as we theorize with regard to the criminal act that is brought to our attention.
They aren't called conspiracy theorists because they doubt the commonly accepted explanation. That would just make them skeptics. They become conspiracy theorists when they offer an alternative explanation which they are unable to support with positive facts and so they resort to using negative facts (meaning ones that may contradict the commonly accepted narrative) combined with unwarranted leaps of logic."Conspiratorialists" and "conspiracy theory/theorists" are popularly and frequently applied terms nowadays... but often only in the perjorative sense. These terms are often combined with "kooks wearing tin-foil hats". Government officials and mainstream media figures constantly wield these terms in support of their claims, and in the attempt to cast aspersion on those who challenge them. This has been going on for a long time, and became a common practice shortly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This is not accidental, or merely coincidental. It is a psycholinguistic tactic used by officialdom regularly. I find that they don't really support their own theories very well in many cases with demonstrable fact. Many questions regarding matters that can adversely affect all persons, particularly when they are not armed with clear answers, are met with something like, "Well, we won't answer that, as it is a matter of national security", etc., etc.
Take a step back and examine what you're saying here. There is no such thing as "officialdom" that exists as an organized entity. Mainstream media is mainstream because it appeals to the broadcast spectrum of news consumers, not because they secretly collude to "control the narrative". They exist, like all other corporations, to maximize their shareholders profits. There are good reasons because of that to question their veracity, but they're real, concrete reasons not shadowy insinuations of collusion and conspiracy.I wish I had a dollar for every time a guest on a mainstream media talking head's program was shouted down and prevented from ever explaining why he/she disagrees with officialdom. The guests are often not invited on the show in order to intelligently discuss their position. They are brought on because their view is making waves amongst the common folk, and the programmers can't avoid the discussion or controversy without becoming suspect of protecting or controlling their own narrative. They trust that by simply having someone on they can give the semblance of fairness with the guest and an openness to their perspective. But the media reps are only controlling the narrative. This is in combination with the usual perjoratives, and might include charging an opponent with things that are not true of them.
Ok, so name a few of these reliable "conspiracy theorists"And then there are "conspiracy theorists" who, unlike many of their detractors, do not engage in knee-jerk reactionism and unpalatable smear tactics or name-calling in order to supposedly support their views. They can easily marshal and set forth overwhelming evidence and demonstrable proof of their position, and thus devastate the positions (not the persons) of their detractors or opponents. Of course, when dealing with known liars, and one has the goods on them, I say, do not spare them. If they are lying and covering up crime that hurts and kills other human beings, and especially if the are impenitent, they are criminals who should get whatever they deserve. And if justice does not overtake them now, it will in due time.
God is not mocked.
Nothing wrong with challenging mainstream thought, but I find that when people do so they often confuse debunking what is commonly held with proving their own thesis. Avoid that trap and you could produce something entirely worthwhile.I am presently compiling and writing information on some matters that are decidedly highly controversial, and unavoidably so. My views will certainly be regarded as "conspiratorial" in the perjorative sense by some, but so be it. It's not about dispensationalism or concepts of a flat earth. It's far more serious and consequential than that. And my responsibility is to speak what I believe to be the truth, and to do so for the good of those who are adversely affected by the lies, half-truths, and misinformation that surrounds the official narratives. I've not the slightest doubt that it is my duty and calling to address these things and ultimately to share the information and thesis with others... indeed, with all who will take the time to go over it. I've been on it for a few years already and hope to have it completed soon enough. I won't venture to say yet what these things are about. But, God willing, when I'm done with my work, I will mention it then.
Anyway, thanks for reading and bearing with me.