Posted by a.j.w. [aw] on March 29, 1999 at 03:10:03 {9b2GZPq.rkQrhKBaxdfYMWDeyTkGBtHIU}:
In Reply to: ***1914 Exposed as False posted by Cygnus on March 28, 1999 at 15:35:03:
(really for WW, but following on from Cyg's comments)
not a king in the David line - hmmm. Perhaps the Pelican translation has omited Matt 1:1 or Rom 1:3 for that matter?
Called "son of David" for a joke? Matt 22:45 (say)
I stay right away from eschatology like Hal Lindsay's (not familiar with the Bible Students, although I suspect that on natural Israel, if they hold the same views as CTR did originally, they may not be far from the truth of that matter).
Send me the full debunk for my assessment if you wish.
As for whether Israel is a theocracy(TM) or not, I fail to see why this is important. It has not restored the temple - so. I'd be interested in the detail of the intermingling you have such a concern with - do you know who Caleb was? Any idea of who Rahab was? Yeah - David's gt gt gross-motta.
So, your new Jerusalem coming down from heaven - why should this prophecy of Revelation suddenly invalidate a simply put prophecy of Jesus Christ in Luke 21?
Love,
Andrew.
PS - "respectfully" down here is doublespeak for "disrepectfully", and particularly patronising. Next time I might warn you ;-)