The former chairman of the Florida Republican Party and former Gov. Charlie Crist, along with two of the party's consultants, say the Grand Old Party curtailed early voting in the state for the express purpose of reducing turnout by Democrats. Although citizen advocates have been saying for more than a year that such efforts in Florida and elsewhere were intended to hurt Democrats at the polls, these insider comments are the strongest evidence yet of the GOP's unAmerican shenanigans directed at curtailing the vote. Not just of Democrats, but of African American voters.
Dara Kam and John Lantigua at the Palm Beach Post quoted Jim Greer, the former state Republican chairman:
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. [...]
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.” ...
“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”
The law that was passed in 2011 with supermajorities of Republicans in the Florida legislature cut early voting days from 14 to eight, placed restrictions on voter registration efforts that were so onerous the League of Women Voters stopped its efforts in the state and made it more difficult for voters who changed counties between elections to vote, a move that affected minority citizens more than whites.
Greer is under indictment for a campaign fundraising scheme that allegedly put $200,000 into his pocket. He claims party officials knew what he was doing and didn't object and he has sued them for money he says they owe him. The party's current chairman says anything Greer says should be viewed in light of the indictment. In fact, Greer made similar allegations last July during a court hearing on his lawsuit.
The problem with the current chairman's line of defense is that Crist backs up what Greer says. And so do two current GOP consultants, one of whom didn't want his name used:
Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.
“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.
Crist said that after he extended early voting hours by executive decree in 2008, some Republicans told him, "You just gave the election to Barack Obama.”
25 Şubat 2013 Pazartesi
Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal
To contact us Click HERE
From Daily Kos:Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal
Behold, I am coming soon
To contact us Click HERE
Let’s begin by quoting Paul Henebury’s latest response to me:
Unfortunately, this exemplifies, once more, Henebury’s inability to understand or accurately represent what his opponent said. Did I ever say visions can’t be literal? No.
In fact, in the post Henebury is supposedly responding to, I said:
To quote something I said elsewhere:
Given the fact that visions can either be figurative or literal, there’s no standing presumption that visions are literal. Literality is not the default assumption when we come to Biblical dreams and visions. There is no default assumption one way or the other. You have to look for textual and contextual clues.
Furthermore, my distinction was more complex. I distinguished between literal events and literal depictions. I also distinguished between word-pictures and abstract propositions.
Although the debate between amils and dispensationalists is substantively eschatological, the proximate debate is methodologically hermeneutical. A different hermeneutic may yield a different eschatology.
Henebury’s dispensational hermeneutic prioritizes the “plain-sense” or “face-value” meaning of Scripture. He’s also enamored with the slogan that Scripture “means what it says and says what it means.”
Okay, let’s apply his dispensational hermeneutic to a test case. And let’s compare that to my own hermeneutic:
How soon is soon? Admittedly, that’s a bit vague. Still, how many centuries must elapse before “soon” is “not so soon,” or even “late”?
This promise was uttered in the 1C AD. Here we are in the 21C AD. Does 2000 years and counting still count as “soon”?
By Henebury’s yardstick, at what point does this because a failed prophecy, which is euphemistic for a false prophecy?
Put another way, given Henebury’s slogan that it “means what it says and says what it means,” shouldn’t he be a preterist rather than a futurist? Doesn’t dispensational hermeneutics yield preterist eschatology when applied to time-markers like “I am coming soon,” and “the time is near”?
ii) Let’s consider an alternate approach, exploiting my own distinctions. John says he is bearing witness to what he saw. And what he saw was the revelation Jesus gave to him. A visionary revelation. That’s why he “saw” it.
Given that explicit, introductory framework, what if we index the time-markers to the vision? John saw Jesus coming soon in the vision. The time is near in the vision.
John saw a series of pictorial scenes which occur in rapid succession. He sees world history unfold in a vision. Like watching a movie inside your head. Within that imagistic narrative, past, present, and future elapse in fast forward. The rate of time’s passage within the vision is breathtaking.
Put yourself in John’s position. He saw it all happen in less than a day. Suppose he was in a trance for a few hours. Even in ordinary dreams, time seems to pass much faster.
On this interpretation, it doesn’t refer to how soon Jesus is coming back in real time. It’s not a calendar date. The accelerated pace has reference to the vision.
iii) Perhaps, though, someone might object we should feel cheated by that interpretation. Yes, it presents an edifying motion picture concerning the imminent return of Christ, but that isn’t synchronized with our own time and place. It doesn’t correspond to our immediate situation. It doesn’t happen where I happen to be in world history. Although Jesus may be coming soon in the vision, we may have to wait for an awful long time in real time. Indeed, generations of faithful Christians have already died, longing for his belated arrival.
To that complaint I’d say several things:
iv) As a matter of fact, generations of Christians have died before the return of Christ. You can’t blame that on the interpretation. The interpretation isn’t the cause. Premillennialism is in the same boat as amillennialism on that score.
v) Who’s being cheated? You’d have far more reason to feel cheated if Jesus had come back in the lifetime of the original audience. For that would slam the door on you and me. If Jesus came back in the time of John’s original readers, that would be too soon for my benefit.
The modern reader would be in no position to read this if Parousia had come and gone before he was born. For in that event, he wouldn’t be born. Because we are here, we may be impatient. In a big hurry for the payoff. It’s taking too long. But if it came too soon, we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Soon is relative to where you are in world history.
Although our own generation would be better off if Jesus came now, former generations could say the same thing. The longer it takes, the better that will be for future generations. For heavenbound Christians, born to die in a fallen world.
vi) Moreover, even if Jesus isn’t coming back in my lifetime, it’s encouraging for me to enjoy a preview of how the story ends. To foresee the winners and the losers. Life can be a terrible grind. We need that prospect to hope for and live for. I’m a part of how the story ends. I have a vested interest in the ending–which marks a new and better beginning.
vii) Revelation combines a futuristic eschatology with a realized eschatology. “Prophecy teachers” focus on the endtime events. But Revelation also contains visions of the saints in glory. Those who’ve gone ahead of us. Not only does the book show Jesus returning to be with us, but it also shows us going to be with Jesus–whichever comes first.
Notice first that the vision is of the real temple in Jerusalem (11:1, 9, 11). Ezekiel’s vision is of the actual city and temple. Therefore visions can be of literal things and not pictorial emblems as per Steve’s assertion.
His assertion of vision = symbol has been shown to be false in the matter under discussion, but he asserts it as a fait accomplii nonetheless.
The “genre of visionary revelation” depends on who you read. I have shown that visions can be of literal things – from the text. Again, compare Ezek. 8:3 with 40:2. The “visions of God” in chs.8-11 are of literal structures and happenings in Jerusalem. He has not shown they are always metaphorical symbols of other things.
Moreover, just because a vision pictures somethingdoes not automatically make that thing non-literal like Steve wants.
Unfortunately, this exemplifies, once more, Henebury’s inability to understand or accurately represent what his opponent said. Did I ever say visions can’t be literal? No.
In fact, in the post Henebury is supposedly responding to, I said:
Notice Henebury’s false dichotomy: as if a description can’t use picture language. Why is Henebury unable to comprehend basic concepts?
For instance, John Ruskin was famous for his florid, pictorial descriptions of Venice, the Alps, &c.Well, Venice is real. The Alps are real.
To quote something I said elsewhere:
Visionary revelation also subdivides into theorematic revelation, which is representational–and allegorical revelation, which is symbolic. Allegorical visions are inherently ambiguous. That’s why, in Scripture, visionary revelation (especially allegorical dreams and visions) are frequently accompanied by propositional revelation. Inspired interpretation to explain the inspired dream or vision.
The meaning of an allegorical dream may also be clarified by its realization. Suddenly you see how it all falls into place. But, of course, that’s hindsight rather than foresight.http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-charismata.html
Given the fact that visions can either be figurative or literal, there’s no standing presumption that visions are literal. Literality is not the default assumption when we come to Biblical dreams and visions. There is no default assumption one way or the other. You have to look for textual and contextual clues.
Furthermore, my distinction was more complex. I distinguished between literal events and literal depictions. I also distinguished between word-pictures and abstract propositions.
Although the debate between amils and dispensationalists is substantively eschatological, the proximate debate is methodologically hermeneutical. A different hermeneutic may yield a different eschatology.
Henebury’s dispensational hermeneutic prioritizes the “plain-sense” or “face-value” meaning of Scripture. He’s also enamored with the slogan that Scripture “means what it says and says what it means.”
Okay, let’s apply his dispensational hermeneutic to a test case. And let’s compare that to my own hermeneutic:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near (Rev 1:1-3).
And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.
12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Rev 22:7,12,17,20).i) Let’s measure this by Henebury’s yardstick. What’s the plain sense of “soon” or “shortly”? What’s the face-value meaning of “near” or “at hand”?
How soon is soon? Admittedly, that’s a bit vague. Still, how many centuries must elapse before “soon” is “not so soon,” or even “late”?
This promise was uttered in the 1C AD. Here we are in the 21C AD. Does 2000 years and counting still count as “soon”?
By Henebury’s yardstick, at what point does this because a failed prophecy, which is euphemistic for a false prophecy?
Put another way, given Henebury’s slogan that it “means what it says and says what it means,” shouldn’t he be a preterist rather than a futurist? Doesn’t dispensational hermeneutics yield preterist eschatology when applied to time-markers like “I am coming soon,” and “the time is near”?
ii) Let’s consider an alternate approach, exploiting my own distinctions. John says he is bearing witness to what he saw. And what he saw was the revelation Jesus gave to him. A visionary revelation. That’s why he “saw” it.
Given that explicit, introductory framework, what if we index the time-markers to the vision? John saw Jesus coming soon in the vision. The time is near in the vision.
John saw a series of pictorial scenes which occur in rapid succession. He sees world history unfold in a vision. Like watching a movie inside your head. Within that imagistic narrative, past, present, and future elapse in fast forward. The rate of time’s passage within the vision is breathtaking.
Put yourself in John’s position. He saw it all happen in less than a day. Suppose he was in a trance for a few hours. Even in ordinary dreams, time seems to pass much faster.
On this interpretation, it doesn’t refer to how soon Jesus is coming back in real time. It’s not a calendar date. The accelerated pace has reference to the vision.
iii) Perhaps, though, someone might object we should feel cheated by that interpretation. Yes, it presents an edifying motion picture concerning the imminent return of Christ, but that isn’t synchronized with our own time and place. It doesn’t correspond to our immediate situation. It doesn’t happen where I happen to be in world history. Although Jesus may be coming soon in the vision, we may have to wait for an awful long time in real time. Indeed, generations of faithful Christians have already died, longing for his belated arrival.
To that complaint I’d say several things:
iv) As a matter of fact, generations of Christians have died before the return of Christ. You can’t blame that on the interpretation. The interpretation isn’t the cause. Premillennialism is in the same boat as amillennialism on that score.
v) Who’s being cheated? You’d have far more reason to feel cheated if Jesus had come back in the lifetime of the original audience. For that would slam the door on you and me. If Jesus came back in the time of John’s original readers, that would be too soon for my benefit.
The modern reader would be in no position to read this if Parousia had come and gone before he was born. For in that event, he wouldn’t be born. Because we are here, we may be impatient. In a big hurry for the payoff. It’s taking too long. But if it came too soon, we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Soon is relative to where you are in world history.
Although our own generation would be better off if Jesus came now, former generations could say the same thing. The longer it takes, the better that will be for future generations. For heavenbound Christians, born to die in a fallen world.
vi) Moreover, even if Jesus isn’t coming back in my lifetime, it’s encouraging for me to enjoy a preview of how the story ends. To foresee the winners and the losers. Life can be a terrible grind. We need that prospect to hope for and live for. I’m a part of how the story ends. I have a vested interest in the ending–which marks a new and better beginning.
vii) Revelation combines a futuristic eschatology with a realized eschatology. “Prophecy teachers” focus on the endtime events. But Revelation also contains visions of the saints in glory. Those who’ve gone ahead of us. Not only does the book show Jesus returning to be with us, but it also shows us going to be with Jesus–whichever comes first.
Reigning with Christ
To contact us Click HERE
i) To begin with, his objection is just plain lazy. Amils like Beale and Poythress correlate 20:4-5 with the intermediate state rather than regeneration. Moreover, that interpretation goes back at least as far as Warfield.
Furthermore, there are exegetically serious defenses of the traditional New Birth interpretation. Cf. Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (Mohr Siebeck 2004), 556-57; 567-71.
ii) One problem I have with dispensational hermeneutics is the ad hoc way they oscillate between literal and figurative interpretations. Take Rev 20:1-10. They pick it apart, arbitrarily reassigning some statements to the literal column and other statements to the figurative column. They think Satan is literally prevented from deceiving the nations. They think the 1000 years is literal. They think the sequence is literally chronological.
However, they don’t think Satan is a literal dragon. They don’t think Satan is literally bound with a metal chain, or literally confined to the Netherworld. They take the timeframe literally, but reject the spatial framework.
They don’t treat this scene or pericope as unified depiction. They don’t offer a consistent, holistic interpretation.
Instead, they operate with preconceived rules of thumb like “interpret literally whenever possible” or “interpret literally unless there’s an editorial aside.” Instead of taking the passage as a whole, the way John put it together for the reader, they deconstruct it. They don’t immerse themselves in the pictorial world of Revelation. They don’t see it from within.
BTW, here’s a commentary that gives a good overview of Revelation as a coherent, self-contained narrative:
James L. Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary (Baker 2009).
I don’t agree with everything he says, but it’s a very good way of framing our interpretive approach to Revelation.
iii) It should be unnecessary to point out that numerology is a significant feature of Revelation.
iv) Apropos (iii), why did John seize on the number 1000? Why that figure? Why not 500 or 5000? One commentator has a helpful suggestion:
Conversely, a millennial lifespan crosses the threshold. It signifies reclamation of the prelapsarian status quo ante. At the same time, this still leaves room for the final state. Paradise restored isn’t paradise secured. We haven’t quite reached the consummation in the Revelation narrative.
What about Henebury’s complaint that according to amillennialism, “Satan is bound and imprisoned but is free to pursue Christians”? Here Prigent has another apt observation:
i) It’s tempting for a modern reader (although he needn’t be modern) to subconsciously judge Rev 20:1-3 by what he takes to be obvious, and equate his impression with the viewpoint of the author. But much of what we take to be evident or self-evident can actually be quite provincial–a reflexive impression conditioned by our particular time and place. We need to put ourselves in the situation of John, and ask ourselves if he saw the world the same way we do, rather than assuming that must be the case. Perhaps, at the time John wrote, around the latter half of the 1C, it may not have been absurd, from his perspective, to say that Satan was already bound.
ii) Which brings us to the next point: Revelation alternates between what’s happening on earth, and what’s happening behind-the scenes. Christians here below seem losing the battle. Evil forces seem to have the upper hand. Yet John peels back the veil. That earthbound viewpoint is juxtaposed against scenes of indivisible warfare, where losers in this world are victors in the next, while victors in this world are losers in the next. Appearances notwithstanding, Christians are winning the war, even if we seem to be losing the battle.
It’s like a poor man who has a lottery ticket in his pocket with the winning number. The winner may not have been announced. Or he may not have heard who the winner was. But he still holds the winning ticket.
Revelation plays on a deliberate tension between appearance and reality. And that’s a test of faith. To close our eyes to mere appearances, to superficial evidence, and open the eyes of faith to the saints above and the unseen future, where the enemy never had a chance. Where the enemy was doomed to fail in the long run. As Prigent also observes, on Rev 1:3:
At ground level, seen at eyelevel, it may seem as though Satan is in control. But appearances are deceptive. Even Satan is deceived! Satan is a self-deceived deceiver. Despite appearances to the contrary, his victories are pyrrhic. In fact, his victories are a trap. Like at army that penetrates so far into enemy territory that its supply lines are easily cut. An invading force that finds itself surrounded by the enemy, with no escape. Unable to retrace its steps, to fight its way back. On a narrow trail, at the bottom of a canyon. Once the entrance and exit are blocked, rocks and arrows rain down.
In the NT, Revelation 20 is also metaphorical: Satan is bound and imprisoned but is free to pursue Christians; beheaded martyrs who are resurrected are in actual fact sinners becoming Christians; Christ’s thousand year reign is not a thousand years but is the Church age.http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-prophetic-bromide-2/ I’m going to treat this objection separately:
i) To begin with, his objection is just plain lazy. Amils like Beale and Poythress correlate 20:4-5 with the intermediate state rather than regeneration. Moreover, that interpretation goes back at least as far as Warfield.
Furthermore, there are exegetically serious defenses of the traditional New Birth interpretation. Cf. Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (Mohr Siebeck 2004), 556-57; 567-71.
ii) One problem I have with dispensational hermeneutics is the ad hoc way they oscillate between literal and figurative interpretations. Take Rev 20:1-10. They pick it apart, arbitrarily reassigning some statements to the literal column and other statements to the figurative column. They think Satan is literally prevented from deceiving the nations. They think the 1000 years is literal. They think the sequence is literally chronological.
However, they don’t think Satan is a literal dragon. They don’t think Satan is literally bound with a metal chain, or literally confined to the Netherworld. They take the timeframe literally, but reject the spatial framework.
They don’t treat this scene or pericope as unified depiction. They don’t offer a consistent, holistic interpretation.
Instead, they operate with preconceived rules of thumb like “interpret literally whenever possible” or “interpret literally unless there’s an editorial aside.” Instead of taking the passage as a whole, the way John put it together for the reader, they deconstruct it. They don’t immerse themselves in the pictorial world of Revelation. They don’t see it from within.
BTW, here’s a commentary that gives a good overview of Revelation as a coherent, self-contained narrative:
James L. Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary (Baker 2009).
I don’t agree with everything he says, but it’s a very good way of framing our interpretive approach to Revelation.
iii) It should be unnecessary to point out that numerology is a significant feature of Revelation.
iv) Apropos (iii), why did John seize on the number 1000? Why that figure? Why not 500 or 5000? One commentator has a helpful suggestion:
The sojourn in paradise of which Isa 65:22 announces the Messianic return is reputed to have lasted a little less than a thousand years. God had in fact warned Adam that he would die the day he ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17). It so happens that a day is like a thousand years for the Lord (Ps 90:4) and, in fact, Adam died at 930 years of age (Gen 5:5), thus before the end of the “day” of paradise.
To state that the Messianic kingdom would last a thousand years is to say, in symbolic language, that it restores the conditions of life in paradise that were interrupted by the fall. And such is, in fact, the work of Christ in the book of Revelation: his coming brings about the end of the power of the serpent of old (12:9) who can no longer seduce the nations as he did the first man (12:9; 20:3). That is why the fruit of the tree of life is offered to those who, with Christ, have overcome Satan (2:7; 22:14,19). Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, 558.To elaborate on Prigent’s observation, although some of the fallen prediluvians lived into their 900s, every one of them died short of the 1000 year mark. That’s the cutoff, the outer limit, for life after the fall.
Conversely, a millennial lifespan crosses the threshold. It signifies reclamation of the prelapsarian status quo ante. At the same time, this still leaves room for the final state. Paradise restored isn’t paradise secured. We haven’t quite reached the consummation in the Revelation narrative.
What about Henebury’s complaint that according to amillennialism, “Satan is bound and imprisoned but is free to pursue Christians”? Here Prigent has another apt observation:
It remains for us to understand the symbolism that explains why the author had recourse to the figure of one thousand to describe the present time. This is, in my opinion, because he defines communion with Christ as the restoration of the fall.
Hippolytus responded by a series of arguments that can be summarized, without doing them injustice, as one single objection: the assertion of fulfillment is not true because we observe today that Satan is not in bounds! Without entering into a detailed discussion, I would like to point out the weakness of this line of reasoning:
1. Although an assertion many seem unbelievable to us, that does not mean ipso facto that the author of the book of Revelation made the same judgment!Let’s elaborate on both points:
2. This is all the more true insofar as the book of Revelation presents a revelation of the present time with the intention of making us understand the true meaning that lies beyond appearances! Ibid. 553-54.
i) It’s tempting for a modern reader (although he needn’t be modern) to subconsciously judge Rev 20:1-3 by what he takes to be obvious, and equate his impression with the viewpoint of the author. But much of what we take to be evident or self-evident can actually be quite provincial–a reflexive impression conditioned by our particular time and place. We need to put ourselves in the situation of John, and ask ourselves if he saw the world the same way we do, rather than assuming that must be the case. Perhaps, at the time John wrote, around the latter half of the 1C, it may not have been absurd, from his perspective, to say that Satan was already bound.
ii) Which brings us to the next point: Revelation alternates between what’s happening on earth, and what’s happening behind-the scenes. Christians here below seem losing the battle. Evil forces seem to have the upper hand. Yet John peels back the veil. That earthbound viewpoint is juxtaposed against scenes of indivisible warfare, where losers in this world are victors in the next, while victors in this world are losers in the next. Appearances notwithstanding, Christians are winning the war, even if we seem to be losing the battle.
It’s like a poor man who has a lottery ticket in his pocket with the winning number. The winner may not have been announced. Or he may not have heard who the winner was. But he still holds the winning ticket.
Revelation plays on a deliberate tension between appearance and reality. And that’s a test of faith. To close our eyes to mere appearances, to superficial evidence, and open the eyes of faith to the saints above and the unseen future, where the enemy never had a chance. Where the enemy was doomed to fail in the long run. As Prigent also observes, on Rev 1:3:
We shall begin by taking note of the notion of necessity (what must happen), which we have already encountered in Dan 2:28: “There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and who has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what must happen at the end of time”What if Satan is actually bound, even if it looks to all the world like he is on the loose? And what if that’s because we’re staring in the wrong direction? What if we’ve unwittingly accepted Satan’s interpretation of events? Looking wherever he points?
This is an important doctrine for apocalyptic writers, both Jewish and Christian: God has conceived a plan from all eternity, and the most minute details of it must be accomplished. Ibid. 107.
At ground level, seen at eyelevel, it may seem as though Satan is in control. But appearances are deceptive. Even Satan is deceived! Satan is a self-deceived deceiver. Despite appearances to the contrary, his victories are pyrrhic. In fact, his victories are a trap. Like at army that penetrates so far into enemy territory that its supply lines are easily cut. An invading force that finds itself surrounded by the enemy, with no escape. Unable to retrace its steps, to fight its way back. On a narrow trail, at the bottom of a canyon. Once the entrance and exit are blocked, rocks and arrows rain down.
The papacy is 1600 years old, not 2000 years old
To contact us Click HERE
In news accounts concerning the upcoming retirement of Pope Benedict XVI and a new papal conclave, one way to check to see if the particular news outlet you are watching had actually checked its facts is if it maintains that the papacy is a 2000 year old institution.
In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of scholarship on the topic – both Roman Catholic and Protestant – affirm that “the papacy” was a late development in the history of the church.
While it is almost universally acknowledged that Peter was an important Apostle, a friend of Jesus of Nazareth and an eyewitness to his life, death, and resurrection, it cannot be said that he was “bishop of Rome” in any meaningful sense, nor can it be said that he had “successors”.
In fact, the Roman Catholic writer Klaus Schatz, in his work “Papal Primacy, From its Origins to the Present”, (the Order of St. Benedict, Inc, Collegeville, MN: A Michael Glazier Book published by The Liturgical Press, 1996), makes the following statement:
It is clear that the Roman primacy was not a given from the outset; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century (pg 36).
How do we account, then, for the notion that “the papacy extends all the way back to Peter? One key reason given may be termed “pious romance”. As Eamon Duffy says, in his work, “Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes,” (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997, 2001), though tradition is fairly certain that both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome during the reign of Nero, nothing else is known, and remaining details, often supplied in the second and third centuries, were “pious romance” – works of fiction that were created to fill in some missing details:
These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Duffy, pg 2.)
Yet another writer, Daniel William O’Connor “Peter in Rome: the literary, liturgical, and archeological evidence”, (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1969), describes in this exhaustively detailed work, that the early church was so eager for details that within one hundred years after the deaths of these Apostles, it created the full accounts which are found in the apocryphal Acts of Peter, Paul, and other Apostles.
The everlasting Mosaic covenant
To contact us Click HERE
’mgoing to comment on these two posts:
http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/a-prophetic-bromide-1/
http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-prophetic-bromide-2/
Heneburyis always free to distance his own position from the general run ofdispensationalists. However, it’s up to him to state his own exceptions. That’snot something I can anticipate.
Quotingcovenant theologians against me is a diversionary tactic. Henebury is debatingme, not Beale or Robertson or Poythress or Riddlebarger. Quoting covenanttheologians who disagree with me does nothing disprove my own position. It’snot as if dispensationalists march in lockstep.
Thereare several problems with this appeal:
i)Henebury constantly falls back on his little formula: “if God meant what Hesaid.”
I’mdemonstrated that that formula is ambiguous at best and false at worse. It isunethical for Henebury to ignore counterarguments.
ii) Olamhas a range of meanings. It doesn’t only mean “forever.”
iii) ThePentateuch routinely describes the Mosaic covenant as a series of “everlastingstatutes.” Here are some examples:
That’sjust a sample. If we think olam means these statutes are absolutelyeverlasting, then there’s no room for the new covenant to succeed and supersedethe old covenant.
And howdoes that mesh with Henebury’s belief in a thousand-year reign? Thedispensational millennium is not “forever.”
Which isa reason to assign new creation statements, not to the millennium, which is atemporary phase that’s part of the fallen, old world order, but to the finalstate.
Actually,that passage sabotages Henebury’s argument:
i) In37:27-28, Ezekiel uses two terms that antedate the temple. Both terms go backto the portable shrine in the wilderness. Miskan (“tent,” “tabernacle”) generallydenotes the tabernacle proper whereas miqdas (“sanctuary”) generally denotesthe larger tabernacle complex. Cf. NIDOTTE 2:1078-86; 1130-33. Although miqdascan denote the temple in later OT usage, the term is not specific to thetemple, while miskan is specific to the tabernacle.
Therefore,Ezekiel’s terminology doesn’t single out a temple. The fact that Ezekiel usesfluid, inconsistent terminology underscores the symbolic nature of hisdesignations.
Why doesHenebury assume that God didn’t make an everlasting covenant of peace with thereturnees? Does he think that’s because the returnees didn’t enjoy the sort ofpeace envisioned by the “covenant of peace”?
If so,that’s confused. The fact that the original generation with whom a covenant wasmade didn’t participate in all the benefits of the covenant doesn’t mean Godnever made a covenant with that generation. Covenants are diachronic andintergenerational. Although a covenant may take its inception with a particularindividual or generation, later generations may be the actual beneficiaries.The Abrahamic covenant is a paradigmatic example.
By thesame token, God preserves a remnant in every generation. That’s the thread of continuity.
i)Notice how Henebury artificially splits up Mal 3:2-3 from Mal 3:1.
ii) It’sstriking to compare Henebury’s interpretation to that of fellowdispensationalists. For instance:
iii)Henebury likes to quote Jewish opinion. Well, here’s the interpretation of aMessianic Jewish scholar, who is also, I believe, a dispensationalist:
Now, I’mnot claiming that just by quoting these two scholars, that this ipso factodisproves Henebury. But I did it to make the following points:
a) Onedoesn’t have to be amillennial to agree with my interpretation, and disagreewith Henebury’s. Even dispensationalists can agree with me, in opposition toHenebury’s interpretation.
b)Henebury acts as if special weight attaches to Jewish scholarship. Well, I justgave him an example that takes issue with his own interpretation.
c) I’mnot just quoting scholarly opinion. Both scholars argue for theirinterpretation.
Back to Henebury:
Severalproblems:
i)Dispensationalism combines what Scripture divides while dividing what Scripturecombines. On the one hand, Henebury bifurcates the temple in Zech 4 from thetemple in 6, 8, and 14. On the other hand, he combines the temple in Zechariahwith the temple in Ezk 40-48.
Hedoesn’t show that Zechariah thought he was referring to two different temples.Conversely, Ezekiel doesn’t make his temple contingent on Zech 14:4. Heneburyis making things go together despite the fact that Ezekiel and Zechariah neveralign their material in that fashion.
ii) Howdoes Zech 14:16f. imply a future temple? The Feast of Tabernacles doesn’trequire a temple. It goes back to the wilderness. The returnees celebrated theFeast of Tabernacles before the Second Temple was built (Ezra 3:4,8).
iii) Thereference to warhorses in Zech 14:20 is quite anachronistic if projected intothe distant future.
iv) Whatabout the “drastically altered topography” in Zech 14:4? Let’s begin by quotingthe current standard dispensational commentary on Zechariah:
If themountain in Zech 4:7 is figurative, and if the bronze mountains in Zech 6:1 arefigurative, then why assume the mountain in Zech 14:4 is literal? Does Heneburythink the mountains are literally made of bronze? And note the parallel betweenthe two mountains in Zech 6:1 and a mountain split in two in Zech 14:4-5. We’redealing with a common mountainous metaphor.
v) Thereis also the new creation motif in Zech 14. As the same commentator notes:
However,the millennium is not a recreation of the old order. The millennium is atemporary phase belonging to the old world order.
vi) Inaddition, Zech 14:4 isn’t the same genre as Acts 1:11. The account of theAscension belongs to a historical narrative. It furnishes an eyewitnessdescription, in observational terms.
Bycontrast, Zech 14:4 depicts the warrior God as a gigantic figure (e.g. theColossus of Rhodes) under whose immense weight the mountain divides: “Parts themountain by the very act of treading upon it” (ibid. 348).
If Zech14 envisions the Parousia, it does so in metaphorical terms–like so much elsein Zechariah’s complex imagery.
Back to Henebury:
Exceptthat God promises Zerubbabel and the returnees divine empowerment to completethe task (Zech 4:6-7; cf. Haggai 2:4). Therefore, preexisting logisticalobstacles would be no impediment to building Ezekiel’s temple after the exile.
Whichmay be because Ezekiel’s temple is symbolic. The added fact that Ezekiel’stemple lacks some of the essential furnishings of the Solomonic temple shouldcue us that Ezekiel’s temple is just a symbolic shell. A stage-set.
Theproblem with appealing to new covenant conditions is that Ezk 48-48 envisionsthe continuance of the sacrificial system, which is classically Mosaic. So youcan’t transport it en bloc to the new covenant era.
Heneburyis making no effort to present a serious objection. Needless to say, theBabylonian captives were in no position to rebuild the temple. That requires adegree of national self-determination, which–by definition–the Babyloniancaptives did not enjoy. In their captivity, they were not at liberty to engagein sacred building projects. They were under the boot of their heathenconquerors and overlords.
Heneburyfails to distinguish between apostate Jews and pious or penitent Jews. Indeed,the exile was, itself, a refining process. There was a godly remnant. Ezekieland Daniel are a cast in point. And some former covenant-breakers werechastened by the remedial punishment of the exile.
11:16doesn’t have to denote the Shekinah. The Shekinah is a visible manifestation ofGod’s presence. That doesn’t mean God is absent unless he is visibly present.
Stark isa sociologist, not an OT scholar or ANE scholar. Henebury then cobbles togethersome snippets (sheared of context) from miscellaneous scholars. For instance,he quotes some dispensationalists who unsurprisingly support the dispensationalinterpretation. Oddly enough, he also cites Douglas Stuart, even though Stuartfavors the amillennial interpretation.
Hequotes Brevard Childs, but Childs takes the position that Ezekiel containseditorial vaticina ex eventu. He cites Greenberg, but Jacob Milgrom,Greenberg’s collaborator, reportedly thought Ezekiel’s temple was modeled onthe temple at Delphi!
Whatdoes Henebury hope to accomplish by citings scholars who agree with him? (Andnot all the scholars he cites even agree with his overall position.) After all,I can quote scholars who agree with me. What matters is not collectingscholarly opinions, but sifting scholarly arguments.
Heneburyis prevaricating. He attributed varieties of amillennialism to the allegedsubjectivity of amillennial hermeneutics. I cited the counterexample ofvarieties of premillennialism. By parity of argument, we should attribute thatto the subjectivity of premillennial hermeneutics.
Iresponded to Henebury on his own terms. As usual, he’s not honest enough to beconsistent.
Whywould we impose that framework when a Bible writer is not discussing Biblicalcovenants. That’s extraneous to the text at hand.
That’sjust another bald-faced lie. As I already explained to him, I don’t refer itall to Christ and the Church. I think some elements were realized in postexilictimes. The exiles were repatriated. They rebuilt the temple. They reinstitutedthe sacerdotal and sacrificial systems.
But italso portends a greater fulfillment. Imagery is inherently flexible.
No sea,no sun, no moon. To say that’s symbolic hardly empties it of significance.Rather, it has whatever significance the symbolism signifies.
Heneburyis a Baptist. He interprets the bread of life discourse (Jn 6) symbolically.Imagine a Lutheran debating him on the eucharistic interpretation. The Lutheranwould raise the same objections to Henebury that Henebury is raising to me.
I’m notcourting Henebury’s respect. It’s egotistical for Henebury to imagine that his personalapproval should influence my outlook.
I neversuggested the returnees interpreted Ezk 40-48 in churchly terms. Henebury isconstantly shadowboxing with opponents other than me, then substituting whatthey say for what I said. Henebury lacks focus.
So if we’re going by Ezekiel, why assume it’s a future physical temple ratherthan a present celestial temple?
Theverse doesn’t actually say “dwelt” with us. That’s an idiomatic Englishrendering, but in Greek, John uses a more specific, and evocative term. TheGreek text literally says “tabernacled” with us. Moreover, what tabernacledwith us was God’s glory (doxa) personified. Christ is the Shekinah incarnate,as well as the tabernacle Incarnate. I’m not importing “outside assumptions”into Jn 1:14. Rather, that’s all right there in the text. Makes you wonder ifHenebury ever bothered to exegete Jn 1:14.
Yetanother bald-faced lie. In all my lengthy exchanges with Henebury, I never usedthe covenant of grace to frame or justify my position.
Heneburyutterly lacks intellectual discipline. Instead of responding to my actualarguments, he constantly attacks arguments I didn’t use, firing off rounds intothe bushes. The man has no attention span.
That’snot a sound hermeneutical principle. The objective of exegesis is to choose thebest interpretation. More than one interpretation of a given text might make sense.More than one interpretation can might be consistent with a given text. That’snot enough. Your interpretation ought to be implied by the text.
Prophecyis often obscure. That’s why prophets themselves sometimes seek clarification(e.g. Dan 7:15-16,19-20). Or why a character in the vision (e.g. an angel)provides editorial comments on what the seer is observing.
Henebury’sown understand of Biblical prophecy is mediated by dispensational scholarship.
It maywell be that I’d lose a popularity contest with Henebury. It’s quite possiblethat Henebury would win the atheist, abortionist, universalist, theisticevolutionist, open theist, Muslim, Mormon, unitarian, idolater, apostate vote.If that’s the voting block he’s vying for, he’s welcome to it.
http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/a-prophetic-bromide-1/
http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-prophetic-bromide-2/
One ofthe problems of dealing with Hays is that while he lumps me in with the generalrun of dispensationalists…
Heneburyis always free to distance his own position from the general run ofdispensationalists. However, it’s up to him to state his own exceptions. That’snot something I can anticipate.
…he willnot permit me to cite his fellow covenant theologians against him; especiallywhen they admit to reinterpreting the OT with the NT, or to spiritualizing thetext.
Quotingcovenant theologians against me is a diversionary tactic. Henebury is debatingme, not Beale or Robertson or Poythress or Riddlebarger. Quoting covenanttheologians who disagree with me does nothing disprove my own position. It’snot as if dispensationalists march in lockstep.
(Num25:10 -13) There is no need to go into minute exegesis of this passage to seethat God freely enters into an eternal covenant with Phinehas and hisdescendents – who happen to include Zadokites! Psalm 106:30-31 recounts…If this is true; that is, if Godmeant what He said in the covenant (and covenants have to mean what they say),then whether or not we can figure out the whys and wherefores, there has to bea Levitical priesthood and temple forever in fulfillment of this covenant. This is stressed further by Jeremiah inJer. 33: (Jer 33:14-18).
Thereare several problems with this appeal:
i)Henebury constantly falls back on his little formula: “if God meant what Hesaid.”
I’mdemonstrated that that formula is ambiguous at best and false at worse. It isunethical for Henebury to ignore counterarguments.
ii) Olamhas a range of meanings. It doesn’t only mean “forever.”
iii) ThePentateuch routinely describes the Mosaic covenant as a series of “everlastingstatutes.” Here are some examples:
And youshall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I broughtyour hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day,throughout your generations, as a statute forever (Exod 12:17).
Youshall observe this rite [the Passover] as a statute for you and for your sonsforever (Exod 12:24).
Then hismaster shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or thedoorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shallbe his slave forever (Exod 21:6).
And theyshall be on Aaron and on his sons when they go into the tent of meeting or whenthey come near the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest they bear guiltand die. This shall be a statute forever for him and for his offspring afterhim (Exod 28:43).
Theyshall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be astatute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout theirgenerations. (Exod 30:21).
16 Andthe priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering with a pleasingaroma. All fat is the Lord's. 17 It shall be a statute forever throughout yourgenerations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood(Lev 3:16-17).
17 Itshall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my foodofferings. It is a thing most holy, like the sin offering and the guiltoffering. 18 Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as decreedforever throughout your generations, from the Lord's food offerings. Whatevertouches them shall become holy (Lev 6:17-18).
20 Thisis the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day whenhe is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering,half of it in the morning and half in the evening. 21 It shall be made with oilon a griddle. You shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a grainoffering, and offer it for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 22 The priest fromamong Aaron's sons, who is anointed to succeed him, shall offer it to the Lordas decreed forever (Lev 6:20-22).
Drink nowine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent ofmeeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout yourgenerations (Lev 10:9).
Thethigh that is contributed and the breast that is waved they shall bring withthe food offerings of the fat pieces to wave for a wave offering before theLord, and it shall be yours and your sons' with you as a due forever, as theLord has commanded (Lev 10:15).
And itshall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth dayof the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either thenative or the stranger who sojourns among you (Lev 16:29).
And thisshall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the peopleof Israel once in the year because of all their sins (Lev 16:34).
And youshall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, untilyou have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughoutyour generations in all your dwellings (Lev 23:14).
And itshall be a statute forever for them. The one who sprinkles the water forimpurity shall wash his clothes, and the one who touches the water for impurityshall be unclean until evening (Num 19:21).
That’sjust a sample. If we think olam means these statutes are absolutelyeverlasting, then there’s no room for the new covenant to succeed and supersedethe old covenant.
Noticethe role of the Branch (i.e. Christ). He “executes” or “does” righteousness on the land (eretz). This agrees with Isaiah 2:2-4 (set “inthe last days”). Micah is verysimilar (Mic. 4:1-7, where we are told that God “will reign over [the Remnant]in Mount Zion from now on [the last days – v.1] and forever.”).
And howdoes that mesh with Henebury’s belief in a thousand-year reign? Thedispensational millennium is not “forever.”
Therighteous reign of Messiah is seen in statements like Isa. 26:9; 51:3-5;62:1-5. The paradisaicalconditions described in Isa. 62:1-5 involve the whole creation, as Hosea 2:16f.and Isaiah 11:6-8 make perfectlyclear (Cf. Rom. 8:18-23).
Which isa reason to assign new creation statements, not to the millennium, which is atemporary phase that’s part of the fallen, old world order, but to the finalstate.
So inEzekiel 37:25-28 we read of God setting up His sanctuary under thesefulfillment conditions…Please do not miss the heavy covenantal emphasis of thatprophecy. The sanctuary is thetemple.
Actually,that passage sabotages Henebury’s argument:
i) In37:27-28, Ezekiel uses two terms that antedate the temple. Both terms go backto the portable shrine in the wilderness. Miskan (“tent,” “tabernacle”) generallydenotes the tabernacle proper whereas miqdas (“sanctuary”) generally denotesthe larger tabernacle complex. Cf. NIDOTTE 2:1078-86; 1130-33. Although miqdascan denote the temple in later OT usage, the term is not specific to thetemple, while miskan is specific to the tabernacle.
Therefore,Ezekiel’s terminology doesn’t single out a temple. The fact that Ezekiel usesfluid, inconsistent terminology underscores the symbolic nature of hisdesignations.
Did Godmake an everlasting covenant of peace with the returnees?
Why doesHenebury assume that God didn’t make an everlasting covenant of peace with thereturnees? Does he think that’s because the returnees didn’t enjoy the sort ofpeace envisioned by the “covenant of peace”?
If so,that’s confused. The fact that the original generation with whom a covenant wasmade didn’t participate in all the benefits of the covenant doesn’t mean Godnever made a covenant with that generation. Covenants are diachronic andintergenerational. Although a covenant may take its inception with a particularindividual or generation, later generations may be the actual beneficiaries.The Abrahamic covenant is a paradigmatic example.
By thesame token, God preserves a remnant in every generation. That’s the thread of continuity.
Did HisGlory return to the Second Temple? No. The temple beingreferred to is the one in Ezek. 40ff., which IS in paradisiacal conditions (ch.47), when God shall dwell with Israel forever (43:7).
We mayadd to this the prediction from Malachi 3:2-3, which speaks of a purifiedpriesthood in what appears to be (contra Steve Hays) a Second Advent context(Mal. 3:1 does refer to the First Advent).
i)Notice how Henebury artificially splits up Mal 3:2-3 from Mal 3:1.
ii) It’sstriking to compare Henebury’s interpretation to that of fellowdispensationalists. For instance:
The NTidentifies the messenger of Mal 3:1 as John the Baptist (Mt 11:10; Mark 1:2)…
Thoughnot totally without distant eschatological import (cf. Mal 4:5), the passage athand is fundamentally to be connected to the first advent. The promise is thatthe way having been prepared, the Lord will come to His Temple (cf. Mt 3:1-3;21:12-17; Lk 2:41-51). The messenger who prepares the way does so as a covenantspokesman, one who reminds his hearers that the long-awaited (“whom you areseeking”) one has come to establish the kingdom of God as the ultimateexpression of the ancient covenant promises (Mt 11:11-13).
Mostspecifically, John’s message and ministry were directed to the religiousleadershp of Judaism, an element that could easily be accommodated under theloosely defined rubric of “Levite.” “Levites” appears to be a general term forpriests here.
Many ofthe priests and other religious leaders believed (cf. Jn 3:1; 19:39; Acts 6:7),and in that important sense became purified and qualified to serve as priestsof a new order.
E.Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Moody 1994),430-31,33.
iii)Henebury likes to quote Jewish opinion. Well, here’s the interpretation of aMessianic Jewish scholar, who is also, I believe, a dispensationalist:
First,we’ll look at Haggai 2:6-9…Where was this glory at the dedication of the SecondTemple? It was nowhere to be seen!…It must be asked, therefore, in what way theglory of the Second Temple was greater than the glory of the First Temple.
Toanswer these questions, we turn to the next piece of prophetic evidence, comingfrom the Book of Malachi…Here we have a more explicit statement: there was tobe a divine visitation at the Second Temple.
We seefrom this passage [Mal 3:1-5] that the Lord (in Hebrew, ha’adon, always used with reference to God inthe Hebrew Bible when it has a definite article), preceded by his messenger,would visit the Second Temple, purifying some of his people and bringingjudgment on others. That is to say, there would be a divine visitation of greatimport that would occur in the days of the Second Temple[emphasis his].
Afterreviewing the prophecy we just read from Haggai 2, we can now put two bigpieces of the puzzle together: the glory of the Second Temple would be greaterthan the glory of the First Temple because the Lord himself–in the person ofthe Messiah–would visit the Second Temple!
M.Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections(Baker 2000), 1:75-78.
Now, I’mnot claiming that just by quoting these two scholars, that this ipso factodisproves Henebury. But I did it to make the following points:
a) Onedoesn’t have to be amillennial to agree with my interpretation, and disagreewith Henebury’s. Even dispensationalists can agree with me, in opposition toHenebury’s interpretation.
b)Henebury acts as if special weight attaches to Jewish scholarship. Well, I justgave him an example that takes issue with his own interpretation.
c) I’mnot just quoting scholarly opinion. Both scholars argue for theirinterpretation.
Back to Henebury:
If allthis is not enough we find Zechariah predicting a temple which will be built bythe Branch (Messiah) when He combines the offices of priest and king in Himselfwhen He rules upon His throne (Zech. 6:12-13). And what do we find at the end of the Book? We find, as I have said many times, aDay when the Lord comes to the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:11 anyone?), when thetopography of the land is drastically altered (Zech. 14:4), followingwhich “living waters will flow outof Jerusalem (Zec 14:8), “Jerusalem will dwell in security” (Zec 14:11), andthe nations will come up to Jerusalem to worship the King – who therefore mustbe Divine – (14:16-17), and sacrifices will be offered at the Lord’s house(14:20-21).
As thesepredictions are predicated on what we now know is the Second Coming, clearlythey are in the future and their realization should not be searched for in thepast. The conditions underwhich all this will be done are New covenant conditions (Cf. Zech. 12:9-13:1):
Amillennialistsmight want to turn all of these passages into metaphors (and they do), but theymake perfect sense as they stand. There is no mess. We don’thave all the information, but we have enough. Once amils try to tackle the specifics of these passages,that’s when the train wrecks. So,for the most part, they don’t even try. They just read their interpretations of the NT into them.
Theobvious problem with Henebury’s appeal to Zechariah is that, in context,Zechariah is referring to the Second Temple.
Not inchapter 14 he isn’t. I have shownwhy (cf. Isa. 2:2-3; Zech. 8:3, 20-23; 14:16f.).
The temple built byZerubbabel (Zech 4:6-10). Same thing with Haggai (2:2-4).
A personmay grant that the temple in chapter 4 is the second temple. But I didn’t cite chapter 4. It’s obvious to me that Steve isignoring the details of the passages I did cite.
Ezekielis shown a very detailed and huge temple which cannot be constructed on thepresent Mt. Zion.
Zechariahpredicts a future temple built after Jerusalem has been changedtopographically…
Severalproblems:
i)Dispensationalism combines what Scripture divides while dividing what Scripturecombines. On the one hand, Henebury bifurcates the temple in Zech 4 from thetemple in 6, 8, and 14. On the other hand, he combines the temple in Zechariahwith the temple in Ezk 40-48.
Hedoesn’t show that Zechariah thought he was referring to two different temples.Conversely, Ezekiel doesn’t make his temple contingent on Zech 14:4. Heneburyis making things go together despite the fact that Ezekiel and Zechariah neveralign their material in that fashion.
ii) Howdoes Zech 14:16f. imply a future temple? The Feast of Tabernacles doesn’trequire a temple. It goes back to the wilderness. The returnees celebrated theFeast of Tabernacles before the Second Temple was built (Ezra 3:4,8).
iii) Thereference to warhorses in Zech 14:20 is quite anachronistic if projected intothe distant future.
iv) Whatabout the “drastically altered topography” in Zech 14:4? Let’s begin by quotingthe current standard dispensational commentary on Zechariah:
“Mountain”[Zech 4:7] as metaphor for insuperable opposition or resistance is common inthe OT, especially when it is overcome and reduced to a valley or plain (Isa40:4; 41:15; 42:15; 64:1,3; Mic 1:4; Nah 1:5; Jer 4:24; 51:25-26; Hab 3:10;Zech 14:4-5). Zerubbabel will be able to face this mountain, level it to aplain, and completely achieve the rebuilding committed to his charge.
Coupledwith this [Zech 14:4] is the mountain of vision five (Zech 4:7), that whichbefore Zerubbabel would become a level place. In the latter passage themountain was seen to be an obstacle standing in the way of Zerubbabel toprevent him from discharging the task of temple-building and administering theaffairs of the revived Davidic state. Because of its impenetrability, its sheerhardness, “mountain of bronze” would be an apt description. A problem remainsthat only one mountain appears in vision five, whereas there are two here [Zech6:1] in vision eight. This may be where Zech 14:1-8 fits into the equation. Inthe day of YHWG, Zechariah says, YHWH will stand on the Mount of Olives whichwill split asunder beneath His feet, in effect creating two mountains, one tothe north and one to the south.
Thoughthe scenes are quite different in all three passages, the common imagery andsymbolism cause one to suspect that the author is using stock literary devicesin an integrative way to communicate one overall, consistent message.
E.Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 160, 183.
If themountain in Zech 4:7 is figurative, and if the bronze mountains in Zech 6:1 arefigurative, then why assume the mountain in Zech 14:4 is literal? Does Heneburythink the mountains are literally made of bronze? And note the parallel betweenthe two mountains in Zech 6:1 and a mountain split in two in Zech 14:4-5. We’redealing with a common mountainous metaphor.
v) Thereis also the new creation motif in Zech 14. As the same commentator notes:
Thecoming of YHWH to do battle will bring about cataclysmic changes in the terrainitself, as well as in the patterns of light and darkness and in the seasons(vv4-8)…They attest to His power as the Creator and to the new creation thatwill be founded on the ashes of the old.
This isno mere earthquake in Zechariah, however, but a shaking of the whole universeas YHWH comes in judgment.
Theeschatological day of YHWH is a de-creation in its judgment, but one that givesway to an even more glorious re-creation. A token of that recreation is theissuance of living waters from Jerusalem…
Ibid.347,349,352.
However,the millennium is not a recreation of the old order. The millennium is atemporary phase belonging to the old world order.
vi) Inaddition, Zech 14:4 isn’t the same genre as Acts 1:11. The account of theAscension belongs to a historical narrative. It furnishes an eyewitnessdescription, in observational terms.
Bycontrast, Zech 14:4 depicts the warrior God as a gigantic figure (e.g. theColossus of Rhodes) under whose immense weight the mountain divides: “Parts themountain by the very act of treading upon it” (ibid. 348).
If Zech14 envisions the Parousia, it does so in metaphorical terms–like so much elsein Zechariah’s complex imagery.
Back to Henebury:
I havealready given reasons why the returning exiles would not have thought to takeup the task of constructing Ezekiel’s temple. These include the obvious fact of the sheer size of thestructure, together with the geographical requirements involved.
Exceptthat God promises Zerubbabel and the returnees divine empowerment to completethe task (Zech 4:6-7; cf. Haggai 2:4). Therefore, preexisting logisticalobstacles would be no impediment to building Ezekiel’s temple after the exile.
Then theclear differences between the Mosaic institutions and Ezekiel’s vision.
Whichmay be because Ezekiel’s temple is symbolic. The added fact that Ezekiel’stemple lacks some of the essential furnishings of the Solomonic temple shouldcue us that Ezekiel’s temple is just a symbolic shell. A stage-set.
Finally,the fact that these chapters are prophetic and look to the time when God’scovenants with Israel will be realized under New Covenant conditions:conditions which have not yet been met, but which shall be met “after thefullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:24-27).
Theproblem with appealing to new covenant conditions is that Ezk 48-48 envisionsthe continuance of the sacrificial system, which is classically Mosaic. So youcan’t transport it en bloc to the new covenant era.
If, asSteve Hays says, the people in exile enjoyed better access to God than whenthey were in the land, why rebuild any temple? Hays answers, it is because they were under the Law. But were not the exiles under the Law?
Heneburyis making no effort to present a serious objection. Needless to say, theBabylonian captives were in no position to rebuild the temple. That requires adegree of national self-determination, which–by definition–the Babyloniancaptives did not enjoy. In their captivity, they were not at liberty to engagein sacred building projects. They were under the boot of their heathenconquerors and overlords.
Leviticus26:36 hardly depicts the future exiles having confident access to the Lord.
Heneburyfails to distinguish between apostate Jews and pious or penitent Jews. Indeed,the exile was, itself, a refining process. There was a godly remnant. Ezekieland Daniel are a cast in point. And some former covenant-breakers werechastened by the remedial punishment of the exile.
But whatabout Ezekiel 11:16? Steve writesthat “God tabernacled with the exiles.” This is supposed to prove that God was a moving temple for theexiles. Does this mean the Glorywhich departed the temple in Ezek.10 dwelt with the Jews in Babylon? Duguid, Ezekiel (NIVAC), 151, impliesit, but the temporary sanctuary of v.16 is not the Shekinah, which is whatGod’s presence in the temple meant, so we are not dealing with the same thingin Ezek. 11.
11:16doesn’t have to denote the Shekinah. The Shekinah is a visible manifestation ofGod’s presence. That doesn’t mean God is absent unless he is visibly present.
Besides,temples did not always signify a god’s presence with the people. I showed that from Rodney Stark lasttime.
Stark isa sociologist, not an OT scholar or ANE scholar. Henebury then cobbles togethersome snippets (sheared of context) from miscellaneous scholars. For instance,he quotes some dispensationalists who unsurprisingly support the dispensationalinterpretation. Oddly enough, he also cites Douglas Stuart, even though Stuartfavors the amillennial interpretation.
Hequotes Brevard Childs, but Childs takes the position that Ezekiel containseditorial vaticina ex eventu. He cites Greenberg, but Jacob Milgrom,Greenberg’s collaborator, reportedly thought Ezekiel’s temple was modeled onthe temple at Delphi!
Whatdoes Henebury hope to accomplish by citings scholars who agree with him? (Andnot all the scholars he cites even agree with his overall position.) After all,I can quote scholars who agree with me. What matters is not collectingscholarly opinions, but sifting scholarly arguments.
Thedifferent categorizations of general premillennialists which Steve diverts uswith (there are different kinds of amillennialists for that matter), is whollybeside the point I am making in these posts. They use different hermeneutical approaches as any studentknows. Being broadly“premillennial” doesn’t answer to anything in this thread.
Heneburyis prevaricating. He attributed varieties of amillennialism to the allegedsubjectivity of amillennial hermeneutics. I cited the counterexample ofvarieties of premillennialism. By parity of argument, we should attribute thatto the subjectivity of premillennial hermeneutics.
Iresponded to Henebury on his own terms. As usual, he’s not honest enough to beconsistent.
My mainargument relies upon the weight of the wording of the biblical covenants.
Whywould we impose that framework when a Bible writer is not discussing Biblicalcovenants. That’s extraneous to the text at hand.
Onegigantic “placeholder” or vehicle for the conveyance of a few truths aboutChrist and the Church!
That’sjust another bald-faced lie. As I already explained to him, I don’t refer itall to Christ and the Church. I think some elements were realized in postexilictimes. The exiles were repatriated. They rebuilt the temple. They reinstitutedthe sacerdotal and sacrificial systems.
But italso portends a greater fulfillment. Imagery is inherently flexible.
We knowthe New Jerusalem has no need of the moon, so Jeremiah cannot be referring tothat. Unless, of course, thetroublesome details in Rev. 21 are emptied of significance.
No sea,no sun, no moon. To say that’s symbolic hardly empties it of significance.Rather, it has whatever significance the symbolism signifies.
Heneburyis a Baptist. He interprets the bread of life discourse (Jn 6) symbolically.Imagine a Lutheran debating him on the eucharistic interpretation. The Lutheranwould raise the same objections to Henebury that Henebury is raising to me.
Withoutwishing to be rude, I can respect a man who is honest enough to tell me he isreinterpreting the data through the NT, or that he is “spiritualizing” or“transforming” the apparent meaning of these texts. I can respectfully disagree with Graeme Goldsworthy…
I’m notcourting Henebury’s respect. It’s egotistical for Henebury to imagine that his personalapproval should influence my outlook.
At leastthese men admit to what they are doing. Steve won’t join them but pins his hopes on the hypothesis that theexiles (meaning those hearing Ezekiel) and the returnees interpreted the visionas an emblem; although I don’t see how they could know about the Church!
I neversuggested the returnees interpreted Ezk 40-48 in churchly terms. Henebury isconstantly shadowboxing with opponents other than me, then substituting whatthey say for what I said. Henebury lacks focus.
We’renot told how this temple is built. It is presented to Ezekiel as completed.
So if we’re going by Ezekiel, why assume it’s a future physical temple ratherthan a present celestial temple?
Hequotes Jn. 1:14 and says “Christ embodies what the Temple signifies.” The verse says “The Word became fleshand dwelt among us.” I take thatto mean the Divine One who was with God in the creation became human and livedwith humans. Steve infers it meansthe temple symbolism has become human and been realized. I rate his interpretation as loadedwith outside assumptions.
Theverse doesn’t actually say “dwelt” with us. That’s an idiomatic Englishrendering, but in Greek, John uses a more specific, and evocative term. TheGreek text literally says “tabernacled” with us. Moreover, what tabernacledwith us was God’s glory (doxa) personified. Christ is the Shekinah incarnate,as well as the tabernacle Incarnate. I’m not importing “outside assumptions”into Jn 1:14. Rather, that’s all right there in the text. Makes you wonder ifHenebury ever bothered to exegete Jn 1:14.
Steve’sparagraph is a good sample of the deductive theology of covenanttheologians. They know what theverses say but they don’t believe what they say. They believe their true meaning must fit within theircovenant of grace (which itself is found nowhere in Scripture).
Yetanother bald-faced lie. In all my lengthy exchanges with Henebury, I never usedthe covenant of grace to frame or justify my position.
To giveanother example of dubious use of “visionary genre”: Revelation 12:1-2, 5 isusually said by CT’s to represent the Church (for problems with that seeHere). But Genesis 37:9-10,together with the fact that the Church did not give birth to Christ, surely identifiesthe woman as Israel (cf. Dan. 7:24-27 with Rev. 12:14).
Heneburyutterly lacks intellectual discipline. Instead of responding to my actualarguments, he constantly attacks arguments I didn’t use, firing off rounds intothe bushes. The man has no attention span.
I thinkthat “if the plain sense makes sense, then seek no other sense.”
That’snot a sound hermeneutical principle. The objective of exegesis is to choose thebest interpretation. More than one interpretation of a given text might make sense.More than one interpretation can might be consistent with a given text. That’snot enough. Your interpretation ought to be implied by the text.
Ibelieve the Bible is written for Everyman.
Prophecyis often obscure. That’s why prophets themselves sometimes seek clarification(e.g. Dan 7:15-16,19-20). Or why a character in the vision (e.g. an angel)provides editorial comments on what the seer is observing.
Hence, if correct interpretationdepended on the shifting trends in biblical scholarship we would all be up thecreek without a paddle.
Henebury’sown understand of Biblical prophecy is mediated by dispensational scholarship.
A quicksearch on Google will produce many complaints about Steve Hays from Christiansboth Reformed and non-Reformed, Roman Catholics, and Atheists.
It maywell be that I’d lose a popularity contest with Henebury. It’s quite possiblethat Henebury would win the atheist, abortionist, universalist, theisticevolutionist, open theist, Muslim, Mormon, unitarian, idolater, apostate vote.If that’s the voting block he’s vying for, he’s welcome to it.
24 Şubat 2013 Pazar
Tom Smith, Speaker of Misogynist Nonsense, Pennsylvania's Verbal Cousin of Todd Akin
To contact us Click HERE
Just when you thought Missouri Congressman and Senatorial candidate Todd Akin takes the cake,
meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:
August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:
meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM PDTPennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
by Joan McCarter
Why, oh why, aren't Republicans doing better with women? I mean, they've got guys like this:
[ Then there's a link to this 48 second Youtube video of dumb utterances by Tom Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MhN8F7L7FI ]
That's Tom Smith, anachronistic Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, the guy who said earlier this week that "having a baby out of wedlock" was pretty much like rape. That's a guy with six daughters, so he's got great insight to women.
He's generous, he "allowed" his wife to get a new dress for the event he was speaking at. He's relatable, making a point of talking to the little ladies.A video released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Democrats shows Smith, who introduced Ryan at an event last week, greeting two women in the crowd and asking them what they're talking about."Hahahaha! You women and your shoes. See how well I know your concerns?!"
"We're talking about the power of petite women," one of the women says.
"Oh," Smith responds. "My guess would have been you were talking about shoes."
And he also understands the problems of the economy, and can express it in terms everyone can understand."Perhaps where we're making our mistake is that we are asking President Obama and Senator Bob Casey to do something they have no knowledge of. They've never been in business, they've never ran [sic] businesses, they don't have that knowledge," Smith said. "It would be like, your wife wrecks your car. You're gonna take it to the beauty salon to get fixed? No.""You women and your bad driving and beauty salons. Aren't you precious!"
Ladies, and gentlemen too, that's your 2012 Republican Party. It's hardly a wonder that they don't think we're capable of making our own decisions about our health care and our bodies. We're too busy wrecking cars and thinking about shoes.
August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:
Specifically, his daughter's unintended pregnancy to rape, after a Harrisburg press luncheon in front of a group of reporters.
Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press asked Smith, "How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?"
Smith answered, "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But fortunately for me, I didn't have to. . . . She chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."
Scolforo: "Similar how?"
Smith: "Having a baby out of wedlock.
Scolforo: "That is similar to rape?"
Smith: "No, no, no. Well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."
Smith, incidentally and like Akin, is not attending the national Republican confab in Tampa, joining the Romney campaign's ever-expanding list of untouchables, ne'er-do-wells, foot-in-mouthers, and don't-even-think-about-its.
Let's give Smith his due. He's a self-financed, wholly inexperienced candidate who isn't particularly savvy with the press.
Then again, he's a self-financed, inexperienced candidate who, because he's a multimillionaire, hasn't bothered learning the ropes while attempting to launch his elective career in the U.S. Senate, the Augusta National of politics. No baby steps, if you'll pardon the expression, for this guy.
The reason Smith was asked such an indelicate question is because he and his fellow conservatives are on a crusade to outlaw a procedure that's been legal for four decades. They would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, because that's how much they care about women.
Powerhouse Mother Jones site with Romney's 47% comments
To contact us Click HERE
Here's the powerhouse lode of Mitt Romney videos slamming the 47 percent
by David Corn at Mother Jones:
by David Corn at Mother Jones:
SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3149
During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]
Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:
At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."
More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:
The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."
Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:
We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.
(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)
To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.
When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:
Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."
Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:
They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.
Advertise on MotherJones.comAt the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."
Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.
COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn't believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is "almost unthinkable," and that he would merely "kick the ball down the field.")
Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger
Research assistance: James Carter
This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here.
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now Expands Presidential Debate to Include 2 Third Party Candidates
To contact us Click HERE
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now did the great service of expanding the presidential debate to include two third party candidates, Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party). Video is posted at the right on this page.
As President Obama and Mitt Romney squared off for the first time on Wednesday night, Democracy Now! broke the sound barrier by pausing after Obama’s and Romney’s answers to get real-time responses from candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Stein and Anderson joined Democracy Now! for a live special just miles away from the Obama-Romney contest at the University of Denver. Many Obama supporters have expressed surprise that Romney was able to put the president on the defensive, while Obama failed to mention several of Romney’s potential weak spots, including including his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, his vast personal wealth and offshore investments, and his recent remark that 47 percent of Americans are government dependents. Today, highlights from our "Expanding the Debate" special with the voices of all four candidates, showcasing the broadened perspectives on the critical issues beyond the Democratic-Republican political spectrum. [includes rush transcript].Go to this site for a full transcript of the expanded debate, as broadcast at Goodman's Democracy Now.
Filed under Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, Dr. Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama
Guests:
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president.
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party candidate for president.
Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president.
President Barack Obama, president of the United States campaigning for re-election.
Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal
To contact us Click HERE
From Daily Kos:Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal
The former chairman of the Florida Republican Party and former Gov. Charlie Crist, along with two of the party's consultants, say the Grand Old Party curtailed early voting in the state for the express purpose of reducing turnout by Democrats. Although citizen advocates have been saying for more than a year that such efforts in Florida and elsewhere were intended to hurt Democrats at the polls, these insider comments are the strongest evidence yet of the GOP's unAmerican shenanigans directed at curtailing the vote. Not just of Democrats, but of African American voters.
Dara Kam and John Lantigua at the Palm Beach Post quoted Jim Greer, the former state Republican chairman:
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. [...]
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.” ...
“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”
The law that was passed in 2011 with supermajorities of Republicans in the Florida legislature cut early voting days from 14 to eight, placed restrictions on voter registration efforts that were so onerous the League of Women Voters stopped its efforts in the state and made it more difficult for voters who changed counties between elections to vote, a move that affected minority citizens more than whites.
Greer is under indictment for a campaign fundraising scheme that allegedly put $200,000 into his pocket. He claims party officials knew what he was doing and didn't object and he has sued them for money he says they owe him. The party's current chairman says anything Greer says should be viewed in light of the indictment. In fact, Greer made similar allegations last July during a court hearing on his lawsuit.
The problem with the current chairman's line of defense is that Crist backs up what Greer says. And so do two current GOP consultants, one of whom didn't want his name used:
Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.
“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.
Crist said that after he extended early voting hours by executive decree in 2008, some Republicans told him, "You just gave the election to Barack Obama.”
Is it really that 'tricky' to rig the electoral college in advance?
To contact us Click HERE
Let me open by saying that I agree with about 99.9% of what Jon Bernstein has to say in his most recent take down of the rash of discussions surrounding the various proposals in Republican-controlled blue states to reallocate electoral votes. FHQ, furthermore, agrees that most of this is likely to go nowhere. [But if I had to handicap it, there's a greater chance that something passes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than in Florida, Ohio or Virginia. It's all about the Spectrum.]
However, I kind of part ways with Jon in his final paragraph where he discussed state legislators attempting to game things out in advance of any given presidential election cycle:
Jon is addressing the first, but I don't see either of those as that difficult. Based on our Electoral College Spectrum alone, one can come to a reasonable conclusion on the basic ordering of states. There is variation over time, but that is accounted for in my ECS-based handicapping of the six states above. Again, these plans make more sense now in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than they do in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. The latter group is seemingly more attainable for a Republican candidate.
...as of now.
Regardless, I don't think we are all that far removed from a simple added level of complexity in all of this that would add some oomph to the Republican efforts underway in some state legislatures. And this speaks to the second point on gaming the current system. I can't help but think back to the Republican presidential primary season a year ago. Layered into the state party rules for delegate allocation in several states were a set of conditional rules. If a candidate won 50% of the statewide vote, for instance, winner-take-all rules would be triggered either on the total allotment of delegates (i.e.: Alabama -- but the allocation was split across at-large and congressional district delegates) or in some cases just the at-large delegates (i.e.: Ohio).
My point is that these plans are not all that far removed from better gaming future conditions while also accounting for the uncertainty associated with elections from cycle to cycle. But as I said, we have yet to see any plan proposing the conditional winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. And as many have pointed out, there is little to stop state legislatures (or state governments) from allocating electoral votes based on just about any set of parameters.
What does exist are the conflicts I mentioned back in December between state, state legislature and state party incentives versus national party incentives to change the rules (Jon has also mentioned this several times in the intervening period.). Additionally, there seems to be something of a line of demarcation between being nakedly partisan (as the current plans seem to be) and being NAKEDLY PARTISAN (as conditional plans might be construed or say simply allocating all of the electoral votes to the Republican candidate no matter the outcome).
Take Pennsylvania. Let's assume that the Republican-controlled state government passed a plan that made the allocation of electoral votes dependent upon the winner receiving a certain percentage of the vote. If we look at the period of time in which Democrats have dominated the state in the electoral college (1992-2012), we could set that threshold at 50.37% of the vote (the average of the winning candidates' shares of the vote in Pennsylvania over that time). If the winner received anything north of that, they receive all of the electoral votes.
Of course, the two Clinton elections drove that average down because of Perot's candidacy. If we subtract those two elections from the equation, we get an average winning candidate vote percentage of 51.99%. By extension, if the winning candidate wins over 52% of the vote, then, that candidate wins all of the electoral votes. If not, then the allocation is dealt with in a fashion determined by the legislature. Let's assume the allocation is based on congressional districts in that case.
The obvious rebuttal to this is, "Well that's (52%) a pretty high bar that only seemingly helps the Democratic candidate take all of the electoral votes in some extreme cases (2008) and never seemingly affords that opportunity to the Republican candidate. How does this make the Republican Party better off?" Barring an unlikely fundamental shift in just Pennsylvania, it doesn't. However, that doesn't prevent Pennsylvania Republicans from gambling a little bit and setting that threshold for the conditional winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes a little lower. At the very least this opens the door to potentially winning all of the electoral votes in the future given a more likely national shift toward Republicans that makes Pennsylvania more attainable.
--
Again, I agree with Jon (I don't think much of this is going anywhere because of the complexities of interests involved.), but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Republicans could add a rather simple conditional step to these proposals to better game the electoral college system. The only question is whether it is palatable to continually institute these types of plans in more states when permanent changes to the ordering (states going on/coming off the list) do arise.
...or when Democrats follow suit when the tables potentially begin to turn in terms of partisan control of state legislatures in red presidential states.
Neither of these two flavors of gaming the system strikes me as all that difficult to pull off. The hard part is maintaining all of this over time in a way that is permanently advantageous when changes inevitably occur. It would be like treating the electoral college like the quadrennial commissions that tweak the Democratic Party delegate selection rules. No one really has a stomach for constant changes to the electoral college system like that, but that is likely the Pandora's box any of these changes would open if passed and implemented.
Is it really that 'tricky' to rig the electoral college in advance?
In the short term, probably not. A party may not tip the balance enough to affect the outcome but it can rig things to be more advantageous to itself in the hopes of winning the electoral college. In the long term, however, it becomes very difficult to maintain. "Is either worth it?" may be the better question. FHQ still doesn't think so, and my guess is that most state legislatures ultimately fall into that category as well.
Recent Posts:
In Missouri, Legislation to Remove a Major Roadblock to the 2016 Primary Calendar
Arizona Bill Introduced to Place Presidential Primary on the Same Date as Iowa Caucuses
Back in Business
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
However, I kind of part ways with Jon in his final paragraph where he discussed state legislators attempting to game things out in advance of any given presidential election cycle:
"But the point here is that even if state Republicans were perfectly willing to ignore their own incentives and instead do whatever the national party believed was best, it still would be extremely difficult to game out the proper combination of states in advance. If they could do the entire nation, then it would be easy. But since that can't be done, what remains just isn't very promising."There are two parts to this: 1) Gaming the order of states ahead of time and 2) gaming the resulting allocation plans accordingly.
Jon is addressing the first, but I don't see either of those as that difficult. Based on our Electoral College Spectrum alone, one can come to a reasonable conclusion on the basic ordering of states. There is variation over time, but that is accounted for in my ECS-based handicapping of the six states above. Again, these plans make more sense now in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin than they do in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. The latter group is seemingly more attainable for a Republican candidate.
...as of now.
Regardless, I don't think we are all that far removed from a simple added level of complexity in all of this that would add some oomph to the Republican efforts underway in some state legislatures. And this speaks to the second point on gaming the current system. I can't help but think back to the Republican presidential primary season a year ago. Layered into the state party rules for delegate allocation in several states were a set of conditional rules. If a candidate won 50% of the statewide vote, for instance, winner-take-all rules would be triggered either on the total allotment of delegates (i.e.: Alabama -- but the allocation was split across at-large and congressional district delegates) or in some cases just the at-large delegates (i.e.: Ohio).
My point is that these plans are not all that far removed from better gaming future conditions while also accounting for the uncertainty associated with elections from cycle to cycle. But as I said, we have yet to see any plan proposing the conditional winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. And as many have pointed out, there is little to stop state legislatures (or state governments) from allocating electoral votes based on just about any set of parameters.
What does exist are the conflicts I mentioned back in December between state, state legislature and state party incentives versus national party incentives to change the rules (Jon has also mentioned this several times in the intervening period.). Additionally, there seems to be something of a line of demarcation between being nakedly partisan (as the current plans seem to be) and being NAKEDLY PARTISAN (as conditional plans might be construed or say simply allocating all of the electoral votes to the Republican candidate no matter the outcome).
Take Pennsylvania. Let's assume that the Republican-controlled state government passed a plan that made the allocation of electoral votes dependent upon the winner receiving a certain percentage of the vote. If we look at the period of time in which Democrats have dominated the state in the electoral college (1992-2012), we could set that threshold at 50.37% of the vote (the average of the winning candidates' shares of the vote in Pennsylvania over that time). If the winner received anything north of that, they receive all of the electoral votes.
Of course, the two Clinton elections drove that average down because of Perot's candidacy. If we subtract those two elections from the equation, we get an average winning candidate vote percentage of 51.99%. By extension, if the winning candidate wins over 52% of the vote, then, that candidate wins all of the electoral votes. If not, then the allocation is dealt with in a fashion determined by the legislature. Let's assume the allocation is based on congressional districts in that case.
The obvious rebuttal to this is, "Well that's (52%) a pretty high bar that only seemingly helps the Democratic candidate take all of the electoral votes in some extreme cases (2008) and never seemingly affords that opportunity to the Republican candidate. How does this make the Republican Party better off?" Barring an unlikely fundamental shift in just Pennsylvania, it doesn't. However, that doesn't prevent Pennsylvania Republicans from gambling a little bit and setting that threshold for the conditional winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes a little lower. At the very least this opens the door to potentially winning all of the electoral votes in the future given a more likely national shift toward Republicans that makes Pennsylvania more attainable.
--
Again, I agree with Jon (I don't think much of this is going anywhere because of the complexities of interests involved.), but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Republicans could add a rather simple conditional step to these proposals to better game the electoral college system. The only question is whether it is palatable to continually institute these types of plans in more states when permanent changes to the ordering (states going on/coming off the list) do arise.
...or when Democrats follow suit when the tables potentially begin to turn in terms of partisan control of state legislatures in red presidential states.
Neither of these two flavors of gaming the system strikes me as all that difficult to pull off. The hard part is maintaining all of this over time in a way that is permanently advantageous when changes inevitably occur. It would be like treating the electoral college like the quadrennial commissions that tweak the Democratic Party delegate selection rules. No one really has a stomach for constant changes to the electoral college system like that, but that is likely the Pandora's box any of these changes would open if passed and implemented.
Is it really that 'tricky' to rig the electoral college in advance?
In the short term, probably not. A party may not tip the balance enough to affect the outcome but it can rig things to be more advantageous to itself in the hopes of winning the electoral college. In the long term, however, it becomes very difficult to maintain. "Is either worth it?" may be the better question. FHQ still doesn't think so, and my guess is that most state legislatures ultimately fall into that category as well.
Recent Posts:
In Missouri, Legislation to Remove a Major Roadblock to the 2016 Primary Calendar
Arizona Bill Introduced to Place Presidential Primary on the Same Date as Iowa Caucuses
Back in Business
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.
Kaydol:
Yorumlar (Atom)