"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.  Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11

Berean Christadelphians

Index

For Further Information Contact:  Jim Phillips

 
Berean Christadelphians
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 10 of 12     «   Prev   7   8   9   10   11   12   Next
ARMyers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #136 
I would like to humbly and with all due respect put this idea forward.

I realize that it is Brother Jim's position that the United States seems more like Tyre in the days of David and Solomon. The US spends approximately $6 billion annually on Israel. From 1973 to 2002, the US has spent over $1.6 trillion on Israel. This is more than any other country. Since Israel is small and has no significant natural resources, their entire nation and military has been built with US funds.

I also realize Brother Steve's point. The UK freed Israel and has been the economic powerhouse for most of the 19th century under Queen Victoria. Britain has contributed to the most influential economies in the US, Canada, Australia, East India, Singapore, and Hong Kong. English is the primary language of the world and so on.

Now here is my humble theory:

The United States and the United Kingdom are BOTH Tyre. In fact, Australia and Canada could also be thrown into the mix as being collectively Tyre.

Tyre and Sidon as well as all the Phoenician cities were city-states. Each city was run by an autonomous government or king which was loosely connected together through race. This was much like the Greeks. Athens and Sparta had their own culture, government, people, etc, but collectively they were called Greek. Even Macedonia where Alexander the Great came from is largely considered Greek, even though most of Greece considered Macedonians as "trash." The Holy Roman Empire was a loosely conjoined country of independent princes who opted usually to elect weak emperors to represent the country. Yet they were united as one.

The one thing that keeps them all together is blood. Though they are all independent, they are all united by a common genealogy. The United States, Australia, and Canada all come from one country that has lasted for approximately 1500 years, Britain. They are all united by flesh and blood. Thus, we see time and again that the US and the UK as well as Canada and Australia are united against whatever threat is posed (see WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, Iraq, Afghanistan). I would assert that these nations would all unite once again against Russia's invasion of Israel.

It is also interesting to note that these four nations seem to be the most responsive to the Truth. There are a fair amount of Christadelphians in all four nations. Thus, my point is all four nations are English and speak English and therefore, could all be collectively called English.

Now, I showed Brother Jim a book showing that all Britons, Scots, and Anglo-Saxons were blood related to the Phoenicians. Assuming this book is correct, all English people descend directly from the Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon. And because a people are usually named by their patriarch, all descendants of Tyre would aptly be named Tyre just as all Jews are named after Judah or further Israel. So, all English people regardless of independent governments would be named the people of or the daughter of Tyre.

It is my opinion that spirit is thicker than blood.
And blood is thicker than government.

Aaron
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #137 

Quote:
I also realize Brother Steve's point. The UK freed Israel...

UK freed Palestine (not Israel) from Turkish rule in 1917. They established through the Balfour declaration, a Mandate for Palestine establishing a homeland for Jews in 1922. which complicated British relations with the Arabs. Almost from the practical start of the Mandate, Britain sought the destruction of the mandate they had created.

By 1922, Winston Churchill issued a White Paper which is summarized by these direct quotes from the document:

Quote:

"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2 November 1917."

'Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'.

'it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re-affirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Svres, is not susceptible of change.'

'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

'This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.'

So to clarify, Britain freed Palestine, not Israel, and intended to make a homeland for Jews governed by international forces, not a nation for Jews. And this international governance was to become quite oppressive at the hands of Britain.

In 1929, the Sir John Hope Simpson Report focused most of the Arab’s (called the Palestinian Indigenous population) problems on the Jews. This led to the Passfield White Paper of 1930 limiting Jewish immigration, (though through the first seven years, immigration was only up to 25,000 Jews.) The White Paper was interpreted in such a manner so as to limit economic and political Jewish growth and development to that of the Arabs. Jewish doctors were forbidden to work, and hospitals closed, in the interest of bringing the Jews down to the economic level of the Arabs.

Chaim Weismann, who was chiefly responsible for the Balfour declaration said this of the White Paper:

Quote:
"... it was considered by all Jewish friends of the National Home, Zionist and non-Zionist alike, and by a host of non-Jewish well-wishers, as rendering, and intending to render, our work in Palestine impossible. There was noting left for me but to resign my position as President of the Jewish Agency."

Note that this is Chaim Weismann saying that the action of Britian was making the formation of a homeland for the Jews, impossible. I agree with him.

It is hard for me to look at the history of this time, and not realize that from 1922 forward, Britain considered Israel a thorn that they wished would go away, from 1930 worked passively to make go away, and then ultimately, from 1944 worked aggressively to make go away. This retreat from Israel continued till Maggie Thatcher sailed vessels to the Middle East in violation of a British policy (Sandy Duncan’s White Paper) called "West of Gibraltar" and at the request of US President Ronald Reagan, more commonly known as Renoldus Magnus.

Quote:
"has been the economic powerhouse for most of the 19th century under Queen Victoria."

Is it coincidence, or the fulfillment of Bible Prophesy, that at the moment Britain began to seek Israel’s destruction, she collapsed economically and politically on the world’s stage?

STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #138 
Bro Jim, just to clarify, the following is the Balfour Declaration.     The wording is ... "Establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...."





As you've said, America is turning her back on Israel, in the same way as you claim that Britian has done for some years.     The Israeli government has been thankful for US suport in the past, but openly admits today that she is on her own, as it were, and no longer relies on the "unreserved" support she has received from the US in recent history.

I concluded a long time ago that I am most definitely going to stick with Bro Thomas' exposition on all of this.   As soon as you start moving away, all kinds of danger creeps in.  The clear message to our young people should be "stick with th Doctor" for with him, the test of time has shown, you simply are on the right track!

Bro Steve

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #139 
I think the record clearly shows, bro. Steve, that Britain's intent in 1917 was to form a national homeland for the Jews.  I think there can also be no question that the historical record clearly shows Britain regretted and abandoned this enterprise beginning with Churchill's clarification in 1922.

As I've pointed out many times in this thread, to argue that Britain in Tarshish is to abandon bro. Thomas' exposition, which requires that Tarshish is the richest nation in the world, the strongest Navy in the world, the greatest trading nation in the world, and Israel's protectorate.

You are correct that the US government is not as supportive of Israel today as it was under President G. W. Bush.  There is also little doubt that the current economic and political trials of the US are directly related to this.  Nor is there any doubt that IF THIS TREND CONTINUES, America will fall to complete destruction, not unlike Haman and Britain.  We have seen it before in 1976 - 1980, and 1992 - 1994.  President Jimmy Carter was an absolute anti-semite, as he continues to show himself to this day, and the US paid a terrible economic and political price as a result of his presidency.  (President Carter's former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, recently recommended shooting down Israeli planes if they attacked Iran.  Any wonder the country failed so badly under his administration?)

On the other hand, President Obama's popularity continues to plummet.  He is now below 50% in every polling agency in the US.  His decline is the fastest popularity decline by a US President since records have been kept.  The  polling companies with the best history have him falling from 72% to 43% in nine months! 

The world's treasure which poured into the US at the end of 2008 is now spent, with nothing to show for it.    Unemployment is at 10.2% and rising.  Roubini is projecting 11% by the 2010 elections.  In a couple of recent elections, the President's party was destroyed in record proportions, not unlike 1994, when the anti Israel policies of President Bill Clinton cost his party the US House and US Senate for the first time in 40 years.  The double dip recession projected by Roubini (I assume you know who he is, as it is his personal report you posted a few posts back, as supportive proof that Britain is still Tarshish) looks to be very real, and even discussed by President Obama this past week.

So the current administration is heading into the 2010 elections facing a terrible recession and huge unemployment, and by that time, may be losing a war in Afghanistan, if something isn't done soon there.  That is probably not a formula for electoral success.  Add to that the rebirth of the Conservative movement of 1776 in the US, and you have a change of epic proportion on the horizon. 

Will it happen?  Don't know.  We'll all just sit and watch.  My point is only that the current position of the US is not a fait accompli. 

Your point that Israel believes she must go it alone right now, is not an encouraging sign for the time of the end.  Israel must know she is supported by Tarshish at the time of the end.  Ergo, there must be a Tarshish nation capable of supporting her.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #140 
An interesting event occurred yesterday, in regards to our general discussion, when British Defense Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, criticized US President Barack Obama for his indecisiveness in Afghanistan, and blamed the President for the falling support for the war, among the people in Britain.

Britain has 9,000 troops, and is in process of raising that number to 9,500.  The US has 64,000 troops, and we are awaiting the increase that the US will send.  The Office of the President says that President Obama has now reached a decision.  News reports put the increase at between 34,000 and 36,000 troops.

President Obama has stated in relation to his decision in Afghanistan:

Quote:

"It is in our strategic interests, in our national security interest to make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot operate effectively in those areas," Obama said. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks."

"It is my intention to finish the job," he said of the war in Afghanistan that has been going on for eight years—since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.


Isn't it interesting how the US President is becoming more and more mired and entrenched in a war he doesn't want to be in.  When a senator, he criticized then President G. W. Bush for not fighting the "right war."  In actuality, there is no war that the wing of the party he represents would have considered the "right war."

But, in order to not be seen as militarily inexperienced, or disinterested in protecting the US from future Muslim attacks, he coupled his criticism of US action in Iraq, with a desire for a war in Afghanistan.  Now he is stuck with it, as bro.Thomas pointed out that Tarshish would be, and is becoming more and more entrenched.

So we see two nations, the US and Britain.  The one boastfully (and in my mind foolishly, but that is another subject) saying they will play the role of Tarshish and finish the job.  The other nation is complaining that they can't keep their people on board, if a lot of help doesn't come and soon.  Which of these nations sounds like the King of Tarshish to you, and which one the young lion?

Note:  This playing in Afghanistan hasn't worked well for nations in the past.  It will cost the US dearly in life and treasure.  I will be shocked if it does not ultimately cost President Obama and his party, the presidency.  But of course, the nations are only doing that which God has ordained for them to do.


STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #141 
For the time being, it seems as though the following is "roughly" true.   We have seen in the last 18 months how quickly things can change on the world scene - I wait with patience to see how things pan out in the Divine Plan.

Not so special any more

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Some sharp comments by a former British ambassador to Washington during the Iraq inquiry have again cast doubt on the strength of the so-called "special relationship" between Britain and the United States.

This raises the possibility that the Iraq war will be seen as a moment after which that relationship took a real downturn.

Indeed, it is arguable that the "special relationship" of the second half of the 20th Century and since has been something of a departure from what at times has been an antagonistic one.

The latest signs of what might be a historic decline came when the ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer - always ready with a quote - said that during the lead-up to the war on Iraq in 2003, Britain failed to make its influence felt on two fronts.

First, it did not insist, as the conditions for its support, on progress in the Middle East peace process and on better planning for post-war Iraq.

History warns us not to expect too much from this transatlantic relationship

Second, it did not get a commercial trade-off. Its demands for changes to an air services agreement and steel tariffs were ignored.

Sir Christopher remarked: "I said to London, 'The key thing now, quite apart from Iraq, is to translate this popularity into real achievements which benefit the national interest', and we failed."

The picture he painted was one in which the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair was very much the junior and perhaps dispensable partner.

Warring allies

And so it also seems with Afghanistan.

British Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth, under huge pressure from a relentless procession of casualties and coffins, let slip the other day his frustrations over the slowness of President Barack Obama's decision-making procedures.

This "hiatus", as he put it, the British losses and the Afghan elections, had "mitigated against our ability to show progress".

History, in fact, warns us not to expect too much from this transatlantic relationship.

Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary of state, is well-known for saying that Britain had lost an empire and not found a role and that the special relationship had "about played out".

But he also had this perspective: "Of course a unique relationship existed between Britain and America. But unique did not mean affectionate.

"We had fought England as an enemy as often as we had fought by her side as a friend."

You can be the closest American ally, yet at the commercial negotiating table you are an adversary

After all, the relationship began in war in the 18th Century and continued in war at the beginning of the 19th. The "War of 1812" actually went on until 1815.

Perhaps it is confined in its title to one year out of politeness by both sides.

That war was about trade and it was a signal that dealing with the United States on trade matters was always going to be tough. It is.

You can be the closest American ally, yet at the commercial negotiating table you are an adversary, as Sir Christopher experienced.

Years of rivalry

Throughout the 19th Century there was rivalry between the US and UK - in the earlier decades because the US boundaries had not been set and there was competition for land.

This sometimes nearly spilled into armed conflict.

In the 1840s, President James K Polk was pressed by Democratic party rivals - the then hawks - to declare that the northern US border should extend to the Pacific along the line of 54' 40". The cry went out: "Fifty-four Forty or Fight."

In fact there was no fight.

In an act of statesmanship, the border was extended along the 49th parallel and peace has reigned ever since, apart from an incident or two later when Irish Fenian supporters raided across into Canada.

Ireland would often be a thorn in the side of the relationship.

Commercial rivalry followed as the young republic developed its muscles and the old empire fought to cling to its dominant world position.

The historical pattern is that interests are usually different and that therefore policies often diverge.

Before World War I there was no question that the isolationist US should intervene to help Britain, and it was not until 1917 that the US entered the war - then only because of the German policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare.

And the Irish question could always have its impact.

Chicago Mayor Big Bill Thompson, at the time when the British Black and Tans were on a rampage in Ireland, declared that if he had the chance he would "bust King George in the snoot".

Churchill ambition

Between the wars there was naval rivalry, ended by the Washington Treaty of 1932, which incidentally had the unfortunate consequence of disarming those who would later face Hitler.

Britain has declined from being the master, to being a rival, to being a partner and now to being perhaps simply useful

The Royal Navy had to rely too much on ships laid down in World War I, among them its flagship HMS Hood, the "Mighty Hood", which lasted barely fives minutes against the Bismarck in 1941.

It was not, of course, until the US entry into World War II that the "special relationship" really developed.

Churchill was typically world-embracing when he used the term in his Fulton speech in 1946: "Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples... a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States."

Churchill's view was too ambitious. US leadership during the Cold War was based on far more than friendship between English-speaking peoples - on Nato for a start.

Britain has declined from being the master, to being a rival, to being a partner and now to being perhaps simply useful.

What still counts is a security sharing arrangement and trust, which involves the US giving the UK a nuclear missile.

Diplomacy ebbs and flows but in a big world, the UK is getting smaller and perhaps the US simply less interested.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #142 
Hi bro. Stephen,

I fully concur with what your author has said.  Particularly do I think he has caught the attitude and relationships between Britain and the US historically, and today.  It is, in fact, the same point bro. Thomas makes in Elpis Israel. 

We both are waiting for things to change.  For me, "change" simply means a new, or newly revised US President.  President Jimmy Carter instituted similar policies to President Obama.  President Ronald Reagan followed, winning in a landslide, collapsing the Soviet government in the process, and strengthening relationships with Britain (but does Britain have another Maggie?) and Israel in the process. It was President Reagan's call to arms which saved Britain's entire Navy.  And President Bill Clinton started off similar to President Obama, but changed course mid term, after a disastrous election cycle in 1994.  Both options are available to President Obama.  He can change with the upcoming elections, or follow the same path which will lead to a landslide defeat.  But the US policies must change, if the US is to play the roll of Tarshish.  Watching the news as I type, they are saying that US voters now prefer Republicans 46% to 43% over Democrats in a generic poll (that is, by just asking do you want to vote Republican or Democrat without naming candidates.)  This is a drop of 16% for Obama's Democratic party since his inaugural.  And the worst hasn't even got here yet.  I think the "change" I expect to see is pretty realistic.

I can't imagine what "change" means to you.  It must be somewhere along the lines of the US in total decline, financially and militarily.  While this is occurring, Britain must be rising, financially and militarily. But while this is happening, the US must also adopt a policy of subservience to Britain, which, as your author has correctly reasoned, the US has resented and defied from their inception.  Then Britain must repair British/Israel relationships to the point that Israel would be willing to lean on Britain.  And if Christ's return to to be "soon," then these changes must occur on a level and at a rate never before seen on the world's stage.

All this must occur while Britain is harnessed with the same fascist policies which have led to her decline, (Britain's conservatives may come to power, but from my listening to them, I would judge them as little different than the fascist who are the current ruling folks) and they must do this while fighting the uptick in India's and China's financial fate.  Wow!  You would be a better judge than I, but it may be that we are wrong to expect Britain to break with the EU.  Surely the current government has more in common with Germany and France and the rest of Daniel's image, than they do with the free peoples of the United States.

The United States people will fight a civil war before they submit to current European policies, which I do not rule out. 

President Obama is not only wrong for Tarshish from his relationship to Israel, (though he hasn't actually done anything against Israel, except talk) but also Britain.  He holds much personal bitterness towards Britain due to British colonial policies in Kenya (not unlike Americans of the 19th Century who held much bitterness towards Britain over the war of 1776 and 1812 (and not without merit.)  I can't see President Obama getting over this, and embracing Britain in anything other than lip service.



JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #143 
To clarify what I meant by bro.Thomas making a similar point in Elpis Israel, he observed that nations do not assist each other out of good will, but out of their own self agrandizement. 

I believe that is the point of the above author.
STEVEPHS

Registered:
Posts: 406
Reply with quote  #144 
Quote:
You would be a better judge than I, but it may be that we are wrong to expect Britain to break with the EU.  Surely the current government has more in common with Germany and France and the rest of Daniel's image, than they do with the free peoples of the United States.


What is your view then as to where Britain will be at the time of the end?   Do you believe that Britain will be represented by the 10 toes of the image, as opposed to the always held view that she will be outside of the Union when Russia comes down?

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #145 

I've always believed Britain will not be with the 10 toed image.  I would like to see some evidence that they are moving away from Continental Europe.  It is time.  Don't y'all have elections coming up, which are expected to unseat Gordon Brown and his party?

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #146 
But, there are a lot of uncomfortable things about Britain and her relationship with the mainland right now.  We must remember that England was at one time, a part of the image.

Tony Blair turning Catholic.  England's continued and strengthened support for the EU, particularly in the economy crippling area of Climate Change.  The proposal to have Tony Blair at the head. 

Britain's Conservatives would no doubt be appalled at US Conservatives.  I know US Conservatives would not join with British Conservatives.  I heard your leading Conservative voice support for Britain's National Health Care.  US Conservatives will most likely fight a civil war to resist it, eventually, if necessary. 

Britain's greatest trading party is Germany.

If you believe Britain to be Tarshish, or even a part of Tarshish, I can't imagine these facts make you feel warm and fuzzy.
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #147 

Quote:

 It is possible to be interested in the signs of the times and not interested in that to which they stand related. It is better to see a man much in love with Christ and the hope of the kingdom, and in much zeal for his service in the obedience of His commandments, even if he have little understanding of the signs of the times, than to see a man well up in the politics of the time of the end but of a callous heart towards the person and work and principles of Christ.


 
So, is your point that you feel some on this board are more interested in politics than in the return of Christ?
 
That probably is not an impression I've ever gotten here.  But in my lifetime, I have been publically accused of understanding the doctrine of fellowship, but "precious little else."  It has been stated publically that I understand the nature and sacrifice of Christ, but "couldn't tell you a thing about Zechariah."  (Why Zechariah, I have no clue.)  It has been said I am consumed with Bible prophesy, of which the accuser said "cannot be understood."  Or with the date for the return of Christ, which the critic suggested "Christ doesn't even know."   So I will take this recent criticism of being interested in politics to the exclusion of the return of Christ in the same spirit, just thankful that folks think I know, or at least am interested in something.     
 
Politics are very important right now.  And I do mean right now.  Countries are at major cross roads and the financial, military and political concerns we are watching will tell us an awful lot about where we are in God's plan.  Probably, that point is not made in every post, but if one has followed this thread from its beginning, they should understand that.
 
Allow me to recap where we are in the process, and hopefully, it will be an answer to the posts of bro. Aaron, bro. Eric, and bro. Fred.  Bro. Thomas has set down before us the details of the time of the end.  According to his exposition, at the time of the end there will be a Tarshish power.  That is, there will be one nation which is superior to all others.  That power will have a queen city which is Tyre in concert with it.  Tarshish will be the greatest naval power on the face of the earth.  Tarshish will be the greatest trading nation on the face of the earth.  Tyre will be the richest nation on the face of the earth.  Tarshish will be the protector of Israel.  Tarshish will be hostile to the nations of the image at the time of the end.   Tarshish will have young lions or subservient nations in lock step with it.  Tarshish will spread its wings over Israel from the south in Egypt, and Saudia Arabia; from the sea of Tarshish (the Mediterranean) and from beyond the rivers of Cush.
 
This is his exposition.  If anyone wants to challenge his exposition, that is fine and perfectly acceptible with me.  I will read it, and make a mental note that this is entirely possible, should bro.Thomas' exposition fail, such as bro. Aaron's suggestion of many Tarshish/Tyre states.  I believe that as the Prophesy is understood right now, one mighty Tarshish state, with many young lion subservient states, is more consistent with the prophetic picture.  So, for me right now, I'm still functioning under the impression that bro. Thomas' exposition is the correct exposition.
 
This is bro. Thomas' expostion.  Bro. Steve and I believe identically the same things, I believe.  Where we differ, is that he observes that bro. Thomas identified Tarshish as Britain in his lifetime.  Bro. Steve believes that political events must change to where Britain regains the status she had in bro. Thomas' lifetime,  At that time, Britain fit every qualification to be the Scripturally derived Tarshish.  In our lifetime, the US fits every qualfication to be the Scritpurally derived Tarshish, according to bro. Thomas' exposition.   
 
Bro. Steve then, posts information (generally) to show the falling of the US, and the growth and development of Britain.  These posts tend to be in two categories, financial and political.
 
My posts do not contradict bro. Steve's.  The US is in a wrong phase, if they are to be the Tarshish bro. Thomas has identified.  The trend that bro. Steve is documenting for us is no less serious, than the Soviets treatys with Egypt in the 1950s.  That is why the discussion of politcs has become so vital.  Will the US continue its current trend to a centralized socialist state, a trend, by the way Britain has been on longer than the US, or will there be a political revolution in this country (or in Britain) to take it back to the type of state it recently was, which bro. Thomas said of Tarshish, would be a nation of shop keepers. 
 
It is perhaps even more important than Egypts' issues in the 1950s, because of the time frames we appear to be up against.  If the Obama presidency is a success, and if he continues on his current course of comunitative activity in the US, and having hostile relations with Israel and Britain; then we need to completely revise our prophetic views.  (I say we, I really mean me.)  Because if that is the case, then both time frames and national alliances are all wrong.  And the role of the US in world affairs would more closely resemble the ideas advanced by bro. David Hopper, that the US is the antitype of Carthage, a shooting star which becomes irrelevant to world affairs as time goes on.
 
So, I'm sorry if the discussion is making some of you nervous, but I hope you will forgive us as we watch this pretty closely for awhile.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #148 
Here is a pretty cool map showing the current American presence in the Middle East.  Last night, President Obama committed 30,000 more American troops to Afghanistan, the regions beyond the rivers of Cush.  That also increases the US military budget 30 Billions.

There is much discussion in this country as to the meaning of President Obama's comments that he will begin pulling troops in the summer of 2011.  Secretary of Defense Gates says that the pull out is based on obtaining certain conditions on the ground.  Some from the administration say that there will be a draw down following summer of 2011, but that rate of draw down will depend on conditions on the ground.  2011 will be significant for the 2012 US elections. President Obama's problem is that his core support is opposed to the war, yet he knows that no American President can lose a war and be reelected.  And of course there are any number of scenarios which would make leaving the region impossible, like a Russian involvement in Iran.

image
JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #149 
Quote:
no man knoweth the day or the hour

 
While that is technically true, we also have:

1Th 5:1-4 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.  For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.  For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.  But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
 
Now, if we are not in darkness, then we will not be in that class to whom our Lord comes as a thief in the night.  What is it, if not the sure word of prophesy, which separates those to whom Jesus comes like a thief in the night, and those are aware of the times in which they live?
 

Amo 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

JimPhillips

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 924
Reply with quote  #150 
Hi bro. Eric,

And thank you for your thoughts.

The verse you quoted is not a verse relevant to the dangers of poor exposition of prophesy, but rather, a condemnation for work in the truth not done out of love.

I do believe that people can be destroyed by prophetic exposition, and the individual and the ecclesia that permits it endangers their salvation by allowing it.  By this I mean, if an ecclesia permits futuristic interpretations, and if an ecclesia allows preterit interpretations in their midst, which ultimate in misunderstanding the role of Catholicism in the time of the end, or ends in focusing the attention of the body on Jesus Christ as the anti-christ; then sure, I agree.

But I don't believe that brethren who use the continuous historical method of interpretation, even when they get it wrong, are doing anything to jeopardize their, or anyone else's salvation. 

I suppose, at the root, I don't believe anyone is responsible for our salvation, except ourselves.  I do believe that we can lay difficulties in the paths of stumbling brethren, and certainly be held accountable for it. 

I do find it odd that we are having this discussion interjected here.  I get your point, bro. Freddie, that I should know you better than to think you were making your point against me, and that is true.  But is the reverse not true as well?  But for the purpose of discussion, I focused it on me, but I'm not nearly as concerned that your remarks will restrain my comments, as I am they will restrain others who want to learn in a frank and honest environment, and who would actually be sensitive to the charge, and not bring up their points for discussion.  PC is a powerful tool for the silencing of the truth.

This board is to encourage discussion, not restrain it.  It is for frank and honest discussion, the type of discussion that may be becoming impossible in the sterile and PC conditions of the modern public ecclesia. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.