FSV Mainz Trikots kaufen
Sadly on this day we mark the passing of a dear friend: my Friend is not deceased but has merely transitioned away from Fulfilled Eschatology. Yes, another full preterist has strayed from the herd. Not to fear, people change beliefs every day. Does this go to disprove Fulfilled Eschatology? Sadly; for many, no it does not. What it does signify is that someone is re-examining their beliefs & understandings of items related to Eschatology, and has decided that (for now?) things remain which can not be reconciled between the Bible, History and his current thought processes.
I have had several discussions with him on a multitude of subjects and believe him to be genuinely interested in finding what convinces him of his own personal biblical understanding; that which he accepts as truth. Continued Fellowship among the Brethren should not be at issue with this recent transition, nor should animosity or discord be a result of this change. (on either side of the issue) Many who venture away from Fulfillment are lured into new groups which are made up of, or contain, many other Former Fulfillment believers who have returned to their former doctrinal and/or dogmatic stances and now feel the need not only to reject the idea of fulfillment, but to attack it as a virus, plague or damnable heresy.
Such people refer to us as “Not Christian” or even going so far as to state that we “Hate Christianity, God, Christ & Scripture” simply because we disagree over doctrinal and/or dogmatic issues. These are not our own stated beliefs but instead are presuppositions on behalf of our critics and I therefore reject these types of critique as merely ad-hom attacks or character assassinations to discredit us and alert others to steer clear of those “over-throwing or subverting the faith” again, through presupposition on behalf of those countering our arguments.
Eschatology is a topical Issue & discussion and should never be seen as a Salvational, Salvific or Soteriological argument. Disagreements over items such as Audience Relevance & Time statements are not attacks on the words of God, nor are they denials of plainly written scriptures. Each person stands convicted in their beliefs for a myriad of reasons and among these, are interpretations, hermeneutics, outside influences, prayer, thought, feeling, intent, emotion, want, need, traditions, history, creeds, confessions, synods, councils, edicts, papal bulls, essays, commentaries, biographies, and more.
Disagreeing with the wording on the differences between the Literal-Natural or Literal-Spiritual is not a disagreement with scripture, its message or the character of the speaker, writer, subject or author: These are all disagreements on matters of doctrines & dogma and should never be confused with Soteriological issues. Invariably; when Eschatology is seen as a Salvational issue or item, it gives the aggressor a sense of entitlement or empowerment, which then in turn inflames the pride & ego and more often than not, someone's Salvation or standing in eternity is undoubtedly questioned, doubted, believed, approved, denied or challenged. This is neither how Christ taught his disciples to treat our Brethren or our Enemies.
Some seek to find a third level in this equation, which simply can not be done. Christ simplified it in these words “for he that is not against us is for us” and this is the line that has been drawn in the sand between many within the Futurist & Fulfilled paradigms in Eschatology. I am against no man, woman or child. I am against ideas & beliefs held by people. I hate no man, woman or child. I do not hate Jew, Muslim, Arab or Greek: I harbor no animosity towards Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics, Mormons, Messianic, Judaizer, Buddhist, Hindu, Amish, Quaker or Mennonite.
My own personal doctrinal or dogmatic (personal preferences) views within the realm of Fulfilled Eschatology (Eschatology: The Study of the Last Things) must first take a backseat to Audience Relevance & Time Statements associated with the events surrounding the Parousia; 2nd Coming or Return of Christ. I believe many are placing the kart before the horse in matters of how Introductory Fulfilled Eschatology should be approached or taught. Many who believe in Fulfilled Eschatology believe that understanding the various natures (Literal-Natural-Physical or Literal-Spiritual) of how things took place, brings people into a better or quicker acceptance of the Audience Relevance & Time Statements. I beg to differ drastically.
If I were to tell you that: A) there was going to be an Eclipse at 2:00 AM on the East Coast of the United States, and provided you understood Eastern Standard Time-EST, would you not immediately deduce that I was speaking of a Lunar and not a Solar Eclipse? Conversely; if I were to tell you that: B) there was going to be a Lunar Eclipse on the East Coast of the United States; without additional information, you would not know the time of the eclipse until it happened. Which road is quicker?
If you were to leave your house on a trip that normally takes 12 hours one way, and you arrive 2 hours early, do you not gain an additional 120 minutes of time?
Being stuck in the endless mire of how did this happen, when did this happen or where did this happen, on all the different aspects involved in Eschatology, before a person is convinced all is fulfilled, is enough to give any sane person cause for alarm. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line and this is what is revealed through proper examination, consideration & digestion of the Audience Relevance & Times Statements, as they appear and as you first read them. Free of presupposition or simply an obstinate NO! The Natural Reading & Flow of the Scriptures all point to Fulfillment of the included Eschatological events, within not only a; or one (1) generation, but that it would all be fulfilled within that/their generation.
Allowing that this presupposition generates this myriad of questions as to the various natures in answer to the Literal-Natural-Physical or Literal-Spiritual Nature of how did this happen, when did this happen or where did this happen, on all the different aspects involved in Eschatology, before a person is convinced all is fulfilled: The simplistic acceptance on faith, through only the Audience Relevance & Times Statements, now allows & affords one the luxury of investigating the various natures in answer to the Literal-Natural-Physical or Literal-Spiritual Nature of how did this happen, when did this happen or where did this happen, on all the different aspects involved in Eschatology, in calmer waters within themselves because they feel less threatened and intimidated by the information examined & accepted, and the outsiders who are convinced you must be mad for adopting such a system of belief.
Is it possible for you to imagine a world with no threat of Armageddon & the Annihilation of the Human Race, and the assurance of God that the Human Race will always exist, and that this planet itself, will always exist? One who believes in God must first ask themselves these questions: Could God, at this very moment, end it all or start over with mankind? Has there ever been a time, since God created mankind, when he couldn't?
Doesn't it make sense to accept “The Kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord” as not only a past belief, modern day reality or future event, but rather as an eternal truth? Even the (Greek) Verb Tense in are become is in the Indicative Voice: Meaning no present, past or future tense is applied or implied but is rather simply a stated fact of that which has always been and will eternally remain. Can you imagine a time when God was ever or would ever be powerless over his creation? The answer here lies simply in accepting what has always been known and is reality to God and not to give in to fleshly, worldly or carnal thinking, in matters of eternity.
Audience Relevance & Time Statements are the absolute GOLD in Introductory Eschatology: Without them, man would be forever stuck in conjecture, fantasy & speculation. With them left alone and as they appear, one can only come to the conclusion that these events are things that would take place, be consummated, introduced and/or realized in the 1st Century.
The mistake in critiquing this analysis immediately can turn sour with presumptive statements such as: “This is Heaven“? or “This is the best it's ever going to get“? or “If this is New Jerusalem, I'm throwing out my Bible and I want a refund of everything I've invested in believing such nonsense” Accepting and believing the Audience Relevance & Time Statements is only the beginning of the journey: wanting complete & total revelation from these two items alone is not possible, but in accepting that now means now and shortly means shortly, one's journey into the “how did this happen, when did this happen or where did this happen, on all the different aspects involved in Eschatology” becomes a more, hassle-free venture.
According to the Book of Revelation; all things to be consummated, finished and/or reconciled, happen prior to the New Heaven/New Earth. I believe a simple review and understanding of Matthew 5:17-18 reveals whether or not this event has happened.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled“
Christ said not one thing from the Law & Prophets would pass; until it was all fulfilled: Then and only then, would Heaven & Earth pass. Has anything from the Law & Prophets passed? “But Christ removed the need for a physical Temple, Altar, Sacrifice, Levitical Priesthood & Physical Circumcision, right?” Are these items contained within, among or around the jots & tittles of the Law & Prophets? Can any (individually) be removed before Heaven & Earth pass?
Within Religion, Within Christianity, Within Eschatology, Within Partial Preterist, Historicist, Full Preterist/ Fulfilled Eschatology or even within the 12 Major Schools of thought within Futurist Eschatology: (Pre-Millennialism, A-Millennialism, Post-Millennialism, Pre-Trib Rapture, Mid-Trib Rapture, Post-Trib Rapture, No Rapture, Pre-Wrath, Post-Wrath, Dispensationalism, Zionism & Mid-Acts) there is entirely too much Doctrine & Dogma fighting over little issues. This animosity and hatred has to stop, at least among those that call themselves Christian
If we can all learn to separate Salvation from Doctrine, We would all have a more harmonious experience figuring it all out. Before this step can be taken, before this challenge can be set forth, you must break you!
My Focus on matters of Faith Center around Christ, Christos, the Anointed and/or Anointing. Salvation is a matter of accepting what is: Hebrews 10:14 says “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” everything else is doctrine & dogma: Nothing more than Feeling, emotions, wants & needs.
Right or wrong is not the issue in matters of Eschatology and NEVER should be. IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU OR ME! It's not about the information you or I discover or believe, but it is what you & I do with that information that counts!
Jerry Wm Bowers Jr. (Eschatology 101)
Time is but broken segments of eternity that when collective, is timeless.
http://gapevangelising.webs.com
http://eschatology.ning.com
http://deathisdefeated.ning.com
http://eschatology.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Biblestudies4God
from: Tatianas Blog
Tieshas Weblog
Josobelles Weblog
OGDEN — Keeper Jeff Rogers' 11 saves were not enough for the Weber State club men's soccer team to fend off a furious offensive barrage in Friday night's exhibition with the Mexico U21 national team before several thousand fans at Ogden High School.
Mexico outshot the Wildcats 18-5, notching a 3-0 win after tying Brigham Young University 2-2 last Tuesday, and heading into this afternoon's match against Real Salt Lake's reserves at Rio Tinto Stadium.
“These have been good teams to face,” Mexico coach Mario Arteaga said through an interpreter. “We've had four games and tomorrow we are looking forward to playing (Real) Salt Lake.”
The Wildcats' defense repelled Mexico's offense until the 27th minute when David Ramirez fielded a corner kick from Armando Pulido and slipped the ball past Rogers.
Mexico's passing and speed overwhelmed the Wildcats in the second half, their second goal coming when Erbin Trejo's free kick found the top right corner from just beyond the penalty box.
Tempers boiled over midway through the second half after an altercation between WSU midfielder Jess Patterson and Mexican midfielder Jesus Alberto Dueñas resulting in a yellow card for Patterson and a red for Dueñas.
Minutes later, in the 75th minute, Antonio Salazar buried a penalty kick after being fouled in the box, putting Mexico up 3-0.
“It was a great atmosphere and a great environment,” WSU coach Will Rader said of the crowd that had turned out to support their teams.
“We left a little bit to be desired as far as our play and let down a little bit, but for us to come out in our offseason and play like this is a great opportunity.”
This was only the first of several storm clouds that portended the RailHawks’ gloomy denouement. The Rowdies exited the locker room intent on living up to their name, aggressively pushing a counterattack that seemed to put the RailHawks’ defensive line back on its heels. Then, in the 50th minute, the most significant moment of the match took place when Richardson left the game after reaggravating a hamstring injury that has already forced him to miss several matches this season. Indeed, it actually took two additional minutes for Richardson to completely make his way off the pitch and sub Joseph Kabwe to come on.
Absent Richardson’s ability to breakdown the Rowdies’ defense, Carolina fell back into a containment strategy that only worked until the 61st minute, when a 35-yard free kick from Tampa’s World Cup-bound defender Jeremy Christie found the head of Joe Donoho and its way past goalkeeper Nic Platter to even the score at 1-1.
A flurry of substitutions followed for Rennie. Coming on for Watson, Daniel Paladini seemed to reignite a bit of Carolina’s attacking swagger. On the other hand, the play of the newly-shorn Andriy Budnyy—who substituted for Etienne in the 63rd minute—suggested the specter of Sampson post-Delilah. The RailHawks created but failed to convert several scoring chances, most notably a nifty drive by Elenio that ended with a stop by Tampa goalkeeper Josh Lambo.
Just when it began to look like the RailHawks would have to settle for yet another lackluster draw, the Rowdies’ Kwame “JJ” Adjeman-Pamboe took one more Tampa counterattack past the RailHawks’ defense in the 84th minute and crossed it toward the goal. The ball deflected off the chest of Tampa’s Aaron Wheeler—and perhaps a RailHawks defender—and past Platter for the Rowdies go-ahead goal.
Facing improbable defeat, Carolina continued their relentless attack. Unfortunately, it only resulted in countless empty headers, blocked shots, and, just for good measure, a penalty area takedown of Paladini that the referee only wagged his finger at.
After the match, Rennie was almost apoplectic. “In the first half we were all over them; we played some really good stuff. In the second half, I thought we did quite well, too. Look at it: their goal came from a free kick which came from nothing. A ball in the box—should be simple to defend that. The second goal came from a counterattack, and we’ve got to defend that better. Other than that, our play was good, we created chances… Credit to them: They stuck in there because they weren’t really in the game for long spells.
“I think I’ve coached 120 games, and that only the third time I’ve ever lost a game when [my team] scored the first goal,” Rennie said. “It’s frustrating to lose a game when you play well and you’re on top. It’s very, very frustrating. We just have to take our medicine and learn from it.”
Indeed, any post-mortem of this match should begin with crime scene tape. “One in the second half and two in the first, and we only got one penalty,” lamented an exasperated Rennie. “Those are big moments. They had two goals from not much, and we had three potential penalties that weren’t called.”
Many of the same problems along the defensive line that Matt Bobo referenced after the RailHawks’ last home loss to NSC Minnesota still seem to persist. And, Platter has now allowed four goals in his three league starts, as compared to the one goal Eric Reed allowed over his two starts to open the regular season.
But, nothing was more apparent against Tampa than the way Richardson changes and improves the complexion of the RailHawks’ performance. They are a completely different team with him on the field, and if his nagging injuries persist, so too might the RailHawks roller coaster fortunes.
The RailHawks get to stew on this bitter pill before embarking on a treacherous four-game road trip to the most difficult venues in USSF D2: Puerto Rico, Montreal, Portland and Vancouver. “It’s tough because in the meat of the season you play a game and you get back on the horse,” said RailHawks captain Mark Schulte. “We have to think about this one for two weeks, and that’s the rough part.”
Absent an U.S. Open Cup match that could be scheduled in the interim, the RailHawks return to WakeMed Park on June 19 against Crystal Palace Baltimore. That event is being advertised by RailHawks’ marketing as ‘Bark in the Park Night.’ Until then, another animal reference will have to suffice: snake-bitten.
Anti-semantic
The NYT's public editor Clark Hoyt, today navigates “Semantic minefields.” I had little doubt that at least one of those “minefields” would involve the Middle East, and I wasn't disappointed.
No subject arouses reader passion more consistently than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and The Times navigates a semantic minefield with almost every story on the subject. When Cooper wrote this month about a lunch that Obama had with Elie Wiesel, the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, she said the president was trying to mend fences with American Jews upset at the administration's stance against construction of “Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem.”
Nathan Dodell of Rockville, Md., said it was “tendentious and arrogant” to use the word “settlements” four times in the article when the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has explicitly rejected it in relation to East Jerusalem. Obama has used the term himself to refer to construction in East Jerusalem, and Cooper told me, “I called them settlements because that's the heart of the dispute between the Israelis and the United States: settlement construction in Arab East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want for an eventual Palestinian state.”
But to Dodell, she was taking sides. He asked why she didn't use a neutral term like “housing construction.”
Hoyt immediately starts with condscension. His “arouses reader passion” is a way of saying, “people who are offended don't appreciate our professional reporting have an agenda.” But then Cooper's defense isn't exactly right.
Barry Rubin recently wrote:
But any freeze on Jerusalem won't be made too explicit for a number of reasons. First, ever since the Oslo agreement was originally made in 1993, Israeli leaders have maintained that they interpret it as permitting construction on existing settlements and Jerusalem. For 17 years, the PA accepted this position. It never refused to talk on the basis that such construction was happening. Only when President Barack Obama raised the issue in 2009, it became apparent that the PA couldn't be less militant than the American president.
Israeli construction in Jerusalem has always been accepted as legitimate. It's Cooper who's rewriting history. ( Geography too. What the hell is the “Arab East Jerusalem” that Cooper refers anyway? Ramat Shlomo is in the north of Jerusalem.)
Hoyt continues:
Settlement is a charged word in this context, because it suggests something less than permanent on someone else's land. Israel argues that all of Jerusalem is its undivided capital, a claim not recognized by the United States and most of the world. Articles by Times reporters in Jerusalem do generally use words like “housing” instead of “settlement.” Still, Ethan Bronner, the bureau chief, said it would be unwise to adopt a hard and fast rule, because some areas of the city taken by Israel in 1967 had long been Jewish neighborhoods while others, built more recently, had the feeling of settlements.
Gee talk about using loaded terms. Frankly, I think that a description of Shiloh should be a Jewish city or community not a settlement. But how would Hoyt say his reporters should refer to Gush Etzion (the Etzion Bloc)? After all it was Jewish territory prior to Israel's War of Independence, so when Jews build there it isn't exactly built on “someone else's land.” And remember that the Times has a habit of referring to residents of places in Israel where they don't think Jews should live as “settlers” as if they were somehow less than people.
I do wonder about Bronner's response. My guess is that Bronner might be referring to Sheikh Jarrah rather than Ramat Shlomo. It's a distinction that Hoyt wouldn't get. (Nor is it one that is justified. I'm just addressing Bronner's likely intent.)
In general though, the Times has been careful not to refer to Jewish construction in Jerusalem as a settlement and has corrected itself when it has done so. Not every media organization takes such care.
But then there's another issue. How does the Times refer to Hamas? Here are two recent examples.
Hamas executes 2 accused of aiding Israel:
Israel and Egypt have maintained a strict economic embargo on Gaza. Israel also refuses any direct contact with Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union.
Gaza Rocket Attack Into Israel Kills a Thai Worker
The European Union, like the United States and Israel, classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization, and Lady Ashton — formally Baroness Ashton of Upholland — was not planning to meet with Hamas representatives in Gaza.
Note, Hamas is not a terrorist organization but is “classified” as one. This doesn't appear in every article about Hamas, but it occurs with some frequency. Hamas, however clearly targets civilians, so by definition it is a terrorist organization. Yet the Times seems to take care not to hedge its description of Hamas on a regular basis. The corresponding language regarding Israel would be to describe Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as “classifed as settlements by the Palestinian Authority” and not to use the term “settlements” as a judgment of the paper.
Of course that would assume that bias against Israel was a concern to the New York Times. But I've recently shown quantitatively (if not conclusively) that Israel doesn't get a fair hearing on the Times's opinion pages. It's not surprising that it doesn't get fair treatment in the news section either.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at May 16, 2010 12:37 AM
