Issue #126-JESUS & MESSIANIC AGE (Pt. 2), Age of A

Biblical Errancy Issue #126-JESUS & MESSIANIC AGE (Pt. 2), Age of Accountability, JM's Tract Continues: Points 19 & 20, Christian Decrys Bibliolatry

Nov 10, '08 5:48 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 126

June 1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JESUS & THE MESSIANIC AGE (PART 2)
This month's commentary will conclude the listing begun last month of all the events that were supposed to occur in concert with the arrival of the true Messiah. Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because he failed to usher in the kind of era that was to be the culmination of mankind's hopes. Along with those events listed last month the following must accompany the Messiah's arrival: •THE LAND WAS TO BE DIVIDED ACCORDING TO THE 12 TRIBES AFTER THE CAPTIVITY--Ezek. 47:13-21;
•THE TEMPLE WAS TO BE REBUILT--Ezek. chapters 40 to 46;
•THE ARRIVAL OF ELIJAH--Mal. 4:5 ("Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord");

•THE GOING UP OF THE REMNANT OF THE NATIONS TO JERUSALEM FOR WORSHIP--Zech. 14:16 ("And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles");
•JERUSALEM WAS TO BE SAFELY INHABITED--Zech. 14:11 ("And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited");
•EGYPT SHALL BE A DESOLATION--Joel 3:19 ("Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah....");
•MESSIAH'S ARRIVAL WAS TO BE PRECEDED BY AN EARTHQUAKE--Haggai 2:6-7 ("For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts");
•MESSIAH WAS TO BE THE DESIRE OF ALL NATIONS--Haggai 2:7 ("And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come....");
•GOD WILL SMITE THE EARTH WITH THE ROD OF HIS MOUTH AND...SLAY THE WICKED--Isa. 11:4;
•THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WILL FEAR THE LORD AND SEEK DAVID THEIR KING--Hosea 3:5 ("Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days") and Jer. 30:9 ("But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them");
•ALL POWERS OPPOSING ISRAEL WILL BE POWERLESS--Zech. 12:8-9 ("In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"), Zech 2:5 and Zech. 9:8;
•THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH WILL BE IN THE LAST DAYS--Deut. 4:29-30,
•And lastly, THE MESSIAH'S DOMINION WOULD STRETCH FROM SEA TO SEA--Zech. 9:10 ◦("...and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth"),
◦Psalm 72:8 ("He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth"),
◦Dan. 7:14 ("And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"),
◦Dan. 7:27 ("...the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him"),
◦and Psalm 72:11 ("Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him").


The conclusion to be drawn from all of the above is unmistakable. Jesus couldn't possibly be the long-awaited Messiah because of the large number of events that did NOT accompany his arrival, events that must accompany the arrival of the true Messiah according to prophecy.

We are by no means the first people in history to realize that Jesus didn't fill the bill. Throughout the last 2,000 years countless scholars have noted the wide assortment of deficiencies in the messianic credentials of Jesus of Nazareth. On page 75 in a chapter entitled "The Continuation of the Debate in the Middle Ages" from a book discussing the conflict between Judaism and Christianity, we find the following reference to the Jewish scholar and critic of Christianity, Abraham Troki:

Next, Troki collects all the signs of the onset of the messianic age, which were accepted by rabbinic and Karaite Jews from the Middle Ages down to the emancipation. Given the expectation of these signs, derived from prophecies literally understood, Jesus' messiahship could NOT be taken seriously. These are the following predictions of the prophets, still unfulfilled: •[1] the gathering of the ten tribes under a Davidic king (Ezek. 37:21-22);
•[2] the battle between Gog and Magog (Ezek. 38 and 39);
•[3] the cleaving of the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4);
•[4] the drying up of the river in Egypt at the time of gathering of the dispersed (Isa. 11:15);
•[5] the issuing of living water from the site of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezek. 47:1);
•[6] ...ten men from other nations take hold of the hem of a Jew's coat and say to him: "We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech. 8:23);
•[7] the going up of the remnant of the nations to Jerusalem for worship (Zech. 14:16);
•[8] the appearance there of the nations on sabbaths and new moons (end of Isaiah);
•[9] the expulsion of idols, false prophets, and unclean spirits from the land (Zech. 13:2, Isa. 42:17);
•[10] in the whole world there shall be but one faith, that of Israel (Isa. 52:1, 60:1);
•[11] in the whole world there shall be but one kingdom, the kingdom of the Israelites as God's saints (Num. 24:17, Isa. 60:10-12, Dan. 7:27);
•[12] eternal peace (Isa. 2:4, Micah 4:3);
•[13] peace between wild beasts and domestic animals (Isa. 11:6-9);
•[14] the final end of sin (Ezek. 36:33-37, 37:23-24, Zeph. 3:13);
•[15] the end of suffering (Isa. 65:19);
•[16] renewal of the covenant as sanctification for the Israelites (Ezek. 37:26-28, Jer. 31:34);
•[17] the arrival of Elijah (Mal. 4:5);
•[18] the building of the future temple (Ezek. chapters 40-46);
•[19] the division of the land according to the twelve tribes (Ezek. 47:13), and lastly,
•[20] the resurrection of the dead (Isa. 26:19, Dan. 12:2).
Beyond doubt these and similar prophecies have not yet been fulfilled, and of necessity must yet be fulfilled; for God is not a man that he should lie.The similarities between Troki's list and that provided in BE's most recent commentaries are all too obvious.
Before closing, we might note that the common Christian defense to all of the above is wholly without merit. When pressed on this issue, Christian scholars will concede that the arrival of Jesus did not usher in that which was predicted and his credentials seem tarnished, but another appearance will rectify the situation. What wasn't fulfilled the first time will be completed during his second time around. The obvious flaw in this transparent subterfuge is that there is absolutely nothing in the OT alluding to an alleged "Second Coming." As far as the OT is concerned, there is one messiah and that's all, and he is coming once and that's it. We would challenge any Christian to provide so much as one scintilla of OT prophetic commentary to the effect that the messiah would come twice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
Anyone reasonably well acquainted with Scripture knows that injustices and inequities abound therein. Humanity suffers for what Adam did; Jesus pays the ultimate price for what humanity does, and untold numbers of OT children pay the supreme penalty for the misbehavior of their parents, even though Deut. 24:16 says, "...children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers." But nowhere is injustice more apparent than in the fact that babies, infants, and children who die at a young age are condemned to hell because of conditions over which they have absolutely no control. In John 14:6 Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 3:18 says, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:38 says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." And 1 John 5:12 says, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." All four of these verses clearly state that NO man, not some men, not most men, not many men, but NO man comes to God without accepting Jesus as his savior. Therefore, every person, without exception, must accept Jesus as his personal savior in order to reach the Pearly Gates. And since deceased babies, infants, and young children can never make a commitment to Jesus, they are unjustly condemned to hell because of conditions over which they had absolutely no control.
Because of this dilemma and others that are showered on theologians by children, the former have concocted a dishonest and unbiblical concept known as the Age of Accountability. According to apologists, children below this indeterminate age are excused from all the obligations that burden adults and will not be punished for deeds committed, or expectations unfilled, while on earth. They retain a kind of purity that exempts them from the normal obligations that plague those above the Age of Accountability. The problem with this whole idea is that it is not only unbiblical but flies directly in the face of clear biblical teachings to the contrary. Nowhere does the Bible make exceptions for those under a certain age, and nowhere does the Bible describe foetuses, babies, and children in any terms other than that of sinners in need of purification. From a biblical perspective, as the following verses effectively demonstrate, infants, babies, and foetuses are no purer than anyone else.
•Psalm 58:3 says, "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Notice it says they are wicked, speaking lies, "as soon as they be born."
•Job 14:4 says, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." Yet, many apologists would have us believe that somehow newborns are free from sin and impurity after birth and for that reason cannot be condemned until they reach the Age of Accountability.
•Rom. 5:12 ("Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"),
•Psalm 14:2 ("The lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that does good, no not one"),
•Rom. 3:23 ("For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"),
•1 John 1:10 ("If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us"),
•Rom. 3:10 ("There is none righteous, no not one"),
•1 John 1:8 ("If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"),
•Eccle. 7:20 ("For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not"),
•and Prov. 20:9 ("Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin"),
clearly show that no one, regardless of age, is pure and sinless. Without exception, ALL have sinned. Therefore all will be judged by the same criteria and are under the same obligations. See also: Mark 10:18, 1 John 5:19, 1 Kings 8:46, Rom. 3:12, 7:18-19, Isa. 53:6, 64:6, Gal. 3:22, and Psalm 143:2
The Age of Accountability concept is nothing more than a transparent ruse devised by those seeking to hide the obvious injustices inflicted upon the young and defenseless by a heartless book. It is one of those ideas that should be eliminated before being allowed to exit the starting gate. The Bible makes no exceptions for those too young to comply, and all rationalizations to the contrary are without merit. The Age of Accountability concept is little more than a subterfuge designed to give scripture an aura of compassion and equity allegedly accompanied by strong considerations for extenuating circumstances. Biblicists talk about the book as if it were rational and fair when precisely the opposite is true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #508 from JM continues from last month (Part cc)
[Point #19 in our pamphlet was: Surely you don't believe Eccle 1:9 in the RSV which says, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done, is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun"? How many cities had an atomic bomb dropped on them prior to 1945, and how many people walked on the moon before 1969?--ED.]
JM's Defense is: It is really embarrassing to have to respond to objections such as this. If this is the best he has to offer, he should just quit. Mr. McKinsey did not allow for the context. The writer is not saying that nothing new will ever happen. He points out that people are vain. (v.2) People work to make a profit. (v.3) One generation dies and another takes its place. (v.4) The sun rises and the sun sets. (v.5) The wind blows to the south and then to the north. (v.6) The rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not filled up. (v.7) Everything is full of labor. The eye is not satisfied with what it sees, nor the ear with what it hears. (v.8) This simply shows the regularity of life. Man is on a cycle which ends and begins over and over again....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part cc)
The scholarship of apologists such as yourself never ceases to amaze me, JM. Like so many of your compatriots, if you don't like the script you either rewrite, reinterpret, or ignore it. What does the text say? THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. Could the author have been more clear? I don't see how. Yet, you not only allege the author is "not saying that nothing new will ever happen," which he most assuredly is claiming, but try to defend your pathetic position by listing a series of acts that are decidedly repetitious by your own admission. How does your listing of a series of monotonous and repetitive acts prove that there is, in fact, something new under the sun? By referring to the "regularity of life" and the repetitive cycle in which man is involved, you are only substantiating the position of the author who said there is nothing new under the sun. In effect, you are agreeing with his observation. Yet, you earlier stated he was not saying there is nothing new under the sun. I quoted an author as saying one thing, while you said he meant the opposite. You then proceed to provide evidence that proves he meant what I said. As I have said before, your "logic" is a sight to behold. Your explanation is nothing more than a rambling stream of pseudo-thought. If this is the best you have to offer, the bowling leagues have some vacancies you might want to consider. I'm still awaiting an answer to my original question. How many cities endured atomic attack prior to 1945 and how many people visited the moon prior to 1969? By failing to provide an adequate response, you have only helped to prove that new and unique events do arise. There is something new under the sun after all.

Letter #508 from JM Continues from Last Month (Part dd)
[Point #20 in our pamphlet was: If the Bible is our moral guide, then how can it make pornographic statements such as: "...they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you" (2 Kings 18:27)? Is that what you want your children reading in Sunday School?--ED.]

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey labors hard to find something wrong with the Bible because he has already made up his mind that it is not inspired. Here we have the results of a long and drawn out war in which the remaining soldiers are scraping the bottom of the barrel (so to speak) just to stay alive and continue the fight. They eat and drink their own waste because the supplies have run out and this is all there is left to keep them alive.

If Mr. McKinsey thinks this is pornographic, I wonder what he thinks about the PG-13, R and X rated movies that are being pushed off on the public by allowing them to be rented in video rental stores every day? Will he say that these are pornographic and should not be rented? What about the movies on T.V., where language is often worse than these words? Is this pornographic? I am sure that Mr. McKinsey would find very little wrong with these. Why, then, does he consider the Bible pornographic? Because he has to find an argument against it, and he is at the point that any old thing will do.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part dd)
To begin with, JM, I really wish you and your allies would stop alleging that I have to "labor hard" to find things wrong with the Bible. I can assure you that few comments are further from the truth. Finding problems within Scripture is easy, almost to the point of being ridiculous. Second, my mind was not made up "prior to" the analysis; my mind was made up by the analysis. Anyone who has objectively studied the evidence without any preconceptions or indoctrinations could come to only one conclusion. Third, if I am scraping the bottom of the barrel, it's only because that is where one must go in order to discuss the Bible. Fourth, I noticed you said, "They eat and drink their own waste...." What's wrong? Can't stand the Bible's terminology? Are you choking on the Bible's four-letter words? We both know the Bible did not say "waste." Fifth, who cares why they are eating the stuff; that's irrelevant. We are talking about terminology; don't try to shift our focus to another topic. Sixth, you state, "If Mr. McKinsey thinks this is pornographic...." What do you mean, "if." You mean you have doubts? "Piss" is not filthy language? Where did you grow up? If it isn't filthy language, then why did you choose the word "waste," instead? Seventh, what do you mean by saying that I am "at the point that any old thing will do"? Apparently a 50,000 watt radio station in Atlanta, Georgia doesn't think it is "any old thing." I was promptly censored when I used the word "piss" on the air, and all I was doing was quoting the "good book." Eighth, don't try to put me on the defensive by putting me in the position of defending movie ratings and content. Your statement that, "I am sure that Mr. McKinsey would find very little wrong with these" is wholly inaccurate. I am disturbed by any situation in which labels must be put on movies before you can know if they are reasonably appropriate for viewing, and I'm also bothered by the tremendous amount of trash and violence currently circulating in abundance and masquerading under the rubric of artistic freedom and creativity. But my views aren't the issue; your book's profanity is. So, let's stay on the issue. Ninth, don't try to implicitly excuse, justify, or minimize the Bible's contents because the content of movies and television is reprehensible. And lastly, you need not engage in hyperbole by saying, "Why, then, does he consider the Bible pornographic?" Where have I ever said the Bible is pornographic? There are undoubtedly pornographic statements contained therein, but that doesn't mean the entire book is pornographic.

Letter #508 from JM Continues (Part ee)
Would I want my child reading this on Sunday? Yes! Providing that he is taught why these words were used, it would be perfectly acceptable. They are not used in a pornographic way; they were used to speak of bodily functions and the last extremities of a prolonged siege. I have even quoted this language from the pulpit. The Bible uses the word "ass" to speak of the donkey; men, today, make it dirty and filthy. The Bible speaks of "hell" to refer to either the grave, the realm of the unseen for the wicked, or eternal punishment for the wicked. Men, today, use it as a slang and dirty word. The problem is not with the Bible, it is with our attitude in how we use certain words. If one finds these words offensive, another translation can be used."

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ee)
All you are doing, JM, is resorting to the old "you are taking it out of context" defense. Do you realize how many novelists, writers, poets, musicians, painters, playwrights, composers, sculptors, photographers, and artists could make the same argument when their works are attacked as pornographic by others? I can only conclude that you have no objection to your children reading, viewing, and hearing their works as well. After all, you have already admitted you don't mind your child reading the word "piss" in Sunday School as long as it is viewed in context and "providing that he is taught why these words were used." Shouldn't those whose works you and your compatriots attack be accorded the same opportunity to explain and justify their product?
(To Be Concluded Next Month)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #529 from NS of Richmond, Indiana
Dear Dennis
.... Whether you know it or not, Biblical Errancy has become a major thing in my later years. Much time is spent at the computer, not only writing letters, but attempting to get things in some sort of order on discs. I am very dedicated to the cause, and feel I must speak out. Like you, I realize there are a lot of sick people in the world. I replied to most of the letters (Letters written to NS in response to NS's letters to the editor published in NS's local newspaper--Ed.) personally, but a couple didn't even merit a reply, for they are so encased in Christian fundamentals that getting them to read the Bible with any objectivity would be in direct proportion to my donning a tutu and dancing "Swan Lake".
With ammunition such as the Bible, BE, Robert Ingersoll, Forgery in Christianity, Deceptions and Myths in the Bible, The Bible Handbook, etc., it isn't too hard to shoot down most arguments. Even with their feet encased in cement, it must give some of them pause when they read actual contradictions, murderous laws and acts, which I'm sure most didn't even realize existed. One lady who wrote that her beloved God DID NOT ignore his own commandments, and they weren't even made for Him to begin with was so ridiculous (and wide open) I thought she did merit a reply. I patiently listed many broken commandments (quite a job within itself) along with an analysis of Josh McDowell and others like him.... I also listed various and sundry other despicable deeds her God did and a short history of where the Bible comes from and mailed them to her with my return address....

Letter #530 from CH of Spartanburg, South Carolina
Dear Mr. McKinsey,
I support your effort wholeheartedly. I wish to assure you that one can be a Christian in the truest sense of the word without relying on the Bible as one's only source of Truth. Our sense of spirituality has too often been degenerated to a blind reverence of the Bible--bibliolatry. I wish more people were involved in healing our country's bigotry, greed, self-righteousness and ignorance, cultivated by inaccurate and disingenuous uses of the Bible. What a travesty -- spreading hatred in the name of Love. Keep up the good work.

Editor's Response to Letter #530
Although your support is most appreciated, CH, I think you are trying to put distance between yourself and the Bible when there is little room to spare. If, indeed, you are a Christian in the 'truest sense of the word,' then you are going to be plagued by a multitude of biblical problems that all Christians must confront, even those who reject biblical inerrancy. Christian liberals, for example, cannot escape the problems posed by John 14:6, Rom. 3:23, Rev. 12:7, Original Sin, the Resurrection, God's injustice and so on, ad infinitum. You can't leave the Bible and be a Christian, and the more biblical material you reject, the less of a Christian you become. Many people are trying to remain Christians while conceding all the contradictions and problems we have highlighted over the last ten years. It can't be done without being disingenuous and intellectually schizoid.

Letter #531 from BF of Tallahassee, Florida
Dear Dennis.
You continue to mesmerize me with your knowledge, debating skills, and logic....

Editor's Response to Letter #531 from BF
Dear BF.
I am humbly appreciative for your most gracious accolades. I would be less than candid were I not to admit that commendations go a long way toward keeping our spirits high and our determination energized. Knowing one is appreciated and efforts are not expended in vain are major stimuli to our whole program.

Letter #532 from HM of Bellbrook, Ohio
Dear Dennis
.... I must compliment you on the remarkable way you handle yourself in a face-to-face or voice-to-voice debate. I wish I could stay as cool and calm as your are in confrontations with fundamentalists, but I'm inclined to blow my stack at the least bit of intimidation. By the way, on one of your tapes you read a lengthy list of "deeds" performed by God which made the Devil look like Shirley Temple. You excluded the chapter and verse numbers. Is there any way I can obtain the complete list?

Editor's Response to Letter #532
Dear HM.
Over the years my obsequious, condescending, mild-mannered approach to religious apologists has gradually faded and I think you would find my recent radio appearances to be far more in keeping with the spirit you express. I don't blow my stack but biblicists would do well to be prepared if they seek to defend the Bible or attack the validity of this publication. My strategy and tactics have changed significantly. I now realize one can overdo the Mr. Nice Guy approach. Come what may, I'm now more inclined to tell it like it is.

As far as the reprehensible deeds of God are concerned, chapter and verse references can be found in the commentaries of Issues 115-120. In addition, a brief synopsis can be found near the end of the third issue.