I started to become interested in anti-semitism as a high school student, in a fairly liberal Catholic educational environment, with a Jewish night-school supplement. Both environments were very open to discussing the history with me (the Catholic side perhaps even more interested, since there was a strong social justice component to the education) but both were made more than a little uncomfortable by my attempt to explore contemporary anti-semitism.

In Berkeley and Oakland, there is a fair amount of it. I found that the contemporary American left is capable of sparking some serious anti-semitism, especially around Israeli-Palestinian issues. I really want to post some notes about that on the site, and I likely will, but that isn’t really where the content of this particular post comes from.

When I moved to Fresno as a freshman in college, I moved from one of the most liberal areas in the country to a particularly conservative one, and there was some degree of culture shock there. I suppose I really knew that areas like Fresno existed, I just wasn’t really prepared to live in one of them. That said, I found many of the people there welcoming, regardless of their religious affiliation. The group of friends that I made fairly quickly were largely [though not exclusively] protestant Christians. (There was one Catholic and one agnostic in the group, as well.)

Among that group of friends, the discussion of religion was incredibly civil. Theological differences between the conservative and liberal protestants were often more heated than disputes between the theists and non-theists. It wasn’t really until I started meeting with people and doing work outside of that peer group that I started to encounter anti-semitism.

Where I Found Anti-Semitism, and How

I started taking an interest in the practice of religion during my freshman year; maybe it was some nostalgia for the masses I had been to during high school, or just curiosity about what religion looked like in different parts of the country. That said, friends were inviting me fairly regularly to attend churches with them, and I was happy to oblige. (This will likely seem weird to those who understand how strong my atheism was, especially then. I was reading Hitchens, particularly, a lot.)

Most of these churches and groups were very open and accepting, even those where the prospect of conversion was placed front-and-center. From a personal standpoint, I never encountered much hostility. People were generally nice. (There are a few exceptions to this; those who have listened to the few public talks I’ve given on anti-semitism may have heard me discuss my interactions with a few protestant church leaders who were fairly explicitly unhappy with my Jewish-ness, or a bit too aggressive in their attempts at conversion.)

What I found in all religious communities was a desire to expand their interpersonal circle. Religion in Fresno was profoundly social; the idea of private spirituality (which had a significant foothold in the bay area) wasn’t something that I encountered nearly as often, though perhaps that was a result of the circles I was traveling in.

So, where did the anti-semitism crop up, if the people were friendly and compassionate?

For many of these groups it is doctrinal. A recent post on TFN Insider gives a good preface to the sort of doctrines pervasive in central California that turned out to be hugely problematic. Quoting from a recent report on religious education in Texas, it notes:

(T)he deicide motif is explicit in an essay distributed to students in Dalhart ISD. A handout taken from raptureready.com attempts to incorporate Daniel 9:24-27 into detailed calculations about history’s stead progression towards the end of the age…

[From the handout:] “It wasn’t the killing [of] the Messiah that put the Jews at odds with God. After all He came to die for them. No. It’s that in killing Him, they refused to let his death pay for their sins so He could save them. This had the effect of making His death meaningless to them. That’s what severed the relationship.”

The role of the Jews in the crucifixion narrative isn’t a consciously evaluated part of a good deal of the Christian theology that I encountered during my time in Fresno. It came up periodically, and I would expect that my being a Jewish person made it more likely to come up in conversation than if I hadn’t been. However, one of the things that became apparent is that many Christians thought of this position as a sort of benign one. Historically, it isn’t. I pointed this out periodically in my interactions with various groups; the willingness to note the problematic nature was limited, at best.

There were a fair number of people who noted that they were theological dispensationalists, and sothey were in fact precisely not anti-semitic. The problem is that dispensational theology often has its own problems, theologically, and lends itself to several thoughtless claims that are fairly offensive, if not outright anti-semitic.

Is It Anti-Semitic, Really?

One of the questions that I’ve been challenged on, and take fairly seriously, is whether these sorts of claims are genuinely anti-semitic; what people usually mean when they talk about genuine anti-semitism is whether the claims directly entail some attitude of hatred towards Jews. The attempt that almost immediately follows is one of constructing a theological view that has an explicitly positive view of the role of the Jews without losing the Biblical claims about deicide. In point of fact, this is part of what contemporary dispensationalism looks towards.

I do take this seriously, because I want to be generous to the people that I’m talking to; I don’t want to say that the belief that they hold dear is causally responsible for anti-semitism. What I usually end up conceding is that it is “strongly correlated with” anti-semitism. I want to reneg on that approach, and turn to something a little more antagonistic.

In my long post detailing the history of anti-semitism, there’s a tacit point about what it means for something to be anti-semitic; I don’t just mean to say that the tropes are the limit of anti-semitism, though I think that the obvious presence of deicide (the second trope on the list) among those tropes indicates that the particular theology of Rapture Ready and these teachers in Texas is fairly blatantly aligned with a historically anti-semitic theology.

What I think is more important: The assertion of the theological inferiority of the Jews, stated particularly and explicitly in theological teaching, is an anti-semitic act.

Being anti-pluralist isn’t the problem; it is the singling out of a particular sub-group of non-Christians, the Jews, that is unambiguously anti-semitic. Dispensational theology, by recognizing the theological status of some Jewish covenant, but continuing the particular assertion that Jewish theology is incomplete and in need of some eventual fulfillment during an “end times” does entail that anti-semitic act.

And Eternal I Endure

So, how cynical do I have reason to be about (a) the possibility of a non-anti-semitic protestant theology and (b) the possibility of successful Christian-Protestant relations?

I want to answer the second up-front, because I think it is actually the more important and more easily answered question. The possibility of successful relationships between Christian and Jewish communities individuals is obvious, at least to me. There is no reason that the presence of some peripheral belief that does not bear on the human interaction should preclude productive work on common issues.

The first is more dangerous, partly because I am not personally looking to construct a protestant theology and so I don’t much care about the possibility. It is hard to answer a question when there are a lot of folks who have a lot at stake in the answer, and you don’t. It’s important to try to take the question as seriously as possible.

At first glance, my answer is ‘probably not.’ The prominence of a Jewish body in Christian theology is indisputable, and the importance of that body to the reading of the central texts makes it difficult, if not impossible, to take the text seriously as to what it seems to many to say. (e.g. that the non-Christian Jews were culpable in some way for the execution of Jesus, that the non-Christian Jews actively refused, as a group, to accept Jesus, etc.) One would have to revise the reading of the text enormously, such that the Jews were no longer a particular out-group explicitly discussed in the text. I don’t think this is realistic for contemporary protestants.

That said, I think that the possibility of some interfaith relation is sufficient reason for optimism, and that it should be the focus of our ongoing efforts, rather than the theological problem.

This article was originally published at Philosotroll.

Tagged with:
About The Author

Joshua Stein

34 Responses to Anti-Semitism and Contemporary Protestant Doctrines

  1. AC says:

    Interesting article! I need to reread it a few times….I get the idea of what you are saying, I’ll make a respectful comment after I get a better understanding… Thanks!

    • AC says:

      I guess if the point is a belief in which,

      The Jews need to repent of their sin & accept Jesus and have eternal life,

      Is anti-Semitic, then put my name at the top, Im Adolf!

      But if the point is that the Jews are more accountable or inferior due to their role in the Crucifixion ……then I disagree or at least I never considered that or felt that way….I feel a great kinship to religious Jews, they are my brethren…just wish they would join with me

      Why do you guys gotta make these articles so hard to follow, I guess I am intellectually inferior or just like my articles more straight forward….you guys ever hear of Dennis Prager? Now there’s a fine Jew 😉

      • AC says:

        Regarding, Luther….he got a little carried away….he took the rejection of his gracious offer pretty bad and had a complete meltdown…..what can I say, the guy had issues!!!!

      • AC says:

        Regarding, Luther….he got a little carried away….he took the rejection of his gracious offer pretty bad and had a complete meltdown…..what can I say, the guy had issues!!!!

  2. Patrick Sawyer says:


    First, could you offer us a concise, working definition of anti-semitism as you understand it?

    Second, with respect, the “possibility of a non-anti-semitic protestant theology” ALREADY EXISTS. Those people, churches, ministries, theological frameworks, and institutions within Protestantism that most approximate a thorough and saturated biblical understanding of the Jewish nation and the pervasive implications of the cross of Christ are SOUNDLY AGAINST all forms of anti-semitism. And there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who are of this perspective and tethered to Protestantism in some way.

    Authentic Christians realize there is no virtue in being Protestant per se. The key is being epistemologically and theologically sound when it comes to understanding the mind of God expressed in Genesis 1 to Revelation 22. Many aspects of dispensationalism and groups like Rapture Ready do not meet this standard. In addition, those groups do not represent the whole of Protestantism, or even Protestantism in the main.

    • Joshua Stein says:

      Patrick, with regard to the first question, the honest answer is “Yes, I can give several.” There are numerous working definitions of anti-semitism; the problem is that none of them are very good. The history of anti-semitism is multivalent and, as a result of having problematical differences between political, racial, and religious incarnations, I choose to avoid oversimplifying my definition. I address that a bit in the ponderous article I link to at the end; you don’t really need to read the whole thing, as that comment is right up front in the intro.

      With regard to the second, I disagree; the groups you refer to in your comment [which I would bet refer to the majority of Christian groups in Fresno that I’m addressing] are precisely the sort of thing that I’m concerned about with regard to Judeophilic Christianity. The final two sections of the article are concerned precisely with the sort of understanding of the so-called “anti-anti-semitic” Christians who still have an explicit and subordinate theological space in which they locate the Jewish people.

      • Owyn says:

        So Joshua, you refuse to define antisemitism because there are so many different types?

        Hows this for starters, “using violence against Jews for being Jewish.”

        Was that really so hard?

        • Joshua Stein says:

          Unfortunately, that definition is way too nebulous, and ends up losing us a bunch of the easy cases of anti-semitism.

          Is the casting of the Jews as economic threats to the USSR under Stalin eliciting violence “for being Jewish”? Is the casting of the Jews as the murderers of Christian children in the blood libel cases? Both will create an argument on your definition, and yet both are considered clear cases of anti-semitism in modern scholarship.

          That’s why the typical approach to definition [to put it generously] sucks so monumentally.

          • Owyn says:

            Actually, violence (as defined by Zizek and Benjamin) is structural/linguistic as well as physical. So again, why is this definition inappropriate. It seems that you are trying to define antisemitism as somehow different racism and discrimination. Frankly, I find that differentiation (in others, you may not be creating a hierarchy of evil here) to be hypocritical and obnoxious

      • KR says:

        Joshua, I am troubled that you have repeatedly failed to define “anti-semitism,” either in the article or in the comments. While I am aware that you are troubled, I am only vaguely aware of what troubles you. Do you consider the view “the Jewish religion is not sufficient for salvation” to be anti-semetic? Or are you talking about something more than that? And what are the practical results of holding these views that you call anti-semetic? You seem to be saying that you encountered a lot of nice people, but you are offended by their views (not their actions). I could be completely mistaken, which is why I am asking in this comment.

        • Joshua Stein says:

          I’m actually not offended by their views, but I don’t think that ‘my being offended’ is either necessary or sufficient for something being anti-semitic. I think this is addressed pretty clearly in the last paragraph of the second-to-last section. “Being anti-pluralist isn’t the problem; it is the singling out of a particular sub-group of non-Christians, the Jews, that is unambiguously anti-semitic.”

      • Patrick Sawyer says:


        I read your ponderous article (as you put it) and that is precisely WHY I asked you if you could give us a concise, working definition of anti-semitism. I asked you for this because it seems likely you may define something as anti-semitic that is in fact NOT anti-semitic. And for the purposes of this post a concise, working definition would be helpful.

        To your second point, I’m not familiar with the churches in Fresno but they CANNOT be the type of people, churches, theological framework, ministries, and institutions, I’m referring to because what I am referring to are in fact decidely against anti-semitism. Now perhaps you misuderstand the churches in Fresno you are referring to. I don’t know. I know that the examples you mentioned related to certain expressions of dispensationalism and the Rapture Ready group (and their attending weak and in some cases spurious theology) who have no relationship in key doctrinal perspectives to the Christian (and in this case Protestant) churches, people, ministries, institutions, etc I’m referring to.

        I also know it is an unequivocal reality that there are whole sections of Protestantism that are authentically against anti-semitism. I know this for a multitude of objective reasons, not the least of which is my personal involvement with these churches and ministries.

      • Joseph Martin says:

        Is there a problem in defining antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

        See source at http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/english/

  3. Patrick Sawyer says:


    While I am fine with my last post as far as it goes, I should have added that I do realize anti-semitism is present in certain quarters of Protestantism. And where it does exist, it should be vigorously challenged and rebuked. I agree, it is an important issue, and one that needs more discussion.

  4. […] via Anti-Semitism and Contemporary Protestant Doctrines | Patrol – A review of religion and the mo…. […]

  5. Ron Bruno says:

    A fascinating post, Joshua. As an enthusiastic Hitchens acolyte, I must point out that Hitchens discovered his Jewish heritage after the death of his mother. He wrote about that discovery in a great essay in Grand Street in the 1980s which I always have a hard time remembering the correct title but “On Not Knowing the Other Half of It…” should pop it up on JSTOR. Be sure to pay a fee in memory of Aaron Swartz.

    Now that I have that shameless Hitchens plug out of the way, let’s talk about the history of anti-Semitism, specifically within Protestantism and its founder, Martin Luther. Luther was a rabid anti-Semite, especially toward the end of his life, and his advocacy of anti-Semitism filtered down through the Protestant tradition in Germany. The Holocaust was hardly an aberration; it was in fact the culmination of a long tradition of anti-Semitism in Germany, with a birthplace in the pulpit. The propagation of a hatred so vile from an allegedly Christian origin, should make it easy to understand how one could become a nonbeliever.

    I heartily endorse your optimistic outlook for interfaith relations and hope that dialogue includes nonbelievers. Best wishes to you.

    • Joshua Stein says:

      I address Luther’s anti-semitism at some length in the history of anti-semitism I give in the long article I link to in the post. I more-or-less agree with your assessment, but I think that the theological progression from Luther’s early work to his later work is interesting.

      Hitchens, unfortunately, has some writing on the subject that I find a bit troubling, particularly surrounding the Rick Sanchez issue during the last few years, but he does have some insight on the issue. [What he called the ‘anti-semitic fork’ has been a very useful tool in explaining the history of political anti-semitism.]

      • Bruno says:

        Thanks Joshua. I’m going to do some more reading.

      • Bruno says:

        I’ve had a chance to read through your links, Joshua, and I admire your research. I had previously read that Hitchens piece and it flirts with some troubling stereotypes. I agree that any statement that begins with “Jews are…” typically ends in absurdity with the possible exception- “Jews are incredibly diverse.” My interest in anti-Semitism extends back nearly 35 years to the time when I first started reading Nietzsche. Your analysis mentions that Nietzsche rejected anti-Semitism and cites his correspondence and the break with his editor over the issue. For the sake of other readers, I think its worth elaborating on Nietzsche’s vehement rejection of anti-Semitism, and his fate as propaganda fodder for the Nazis. By far the most central character in Nietzsche’s rejection of anti-Semitism was Richard Wagner, the German composer whose vegetarian regimen eventually influenced Hitler. Nietzsche was a great admirer of Wagner and certainly bears some guilt by association. Nietzsche’s admiration turned to disgust by the late 1870s and in one of his final works, The Case of Wagner, Nietzsche even intimates that Wagner had a Jewish heritage and that anti-Semitism is ultimately a repressed form of Christian self-loathing. That explanation would help explain Martin Luther’s progression to anti-Semite once he realized that Jews were not going to convert en masse to Christianity. The failed attempt to convert Jews explains a great deal of Christian anti-Semitism in terms of self-loathing if not conceit. My great concern with Nietzsche is that he is notoriously difficult to translate, read and understand. My understanding is based on a thoroughreading of Walter Kaufmann’s superlative translation and exegesis and Kaufmann is a perfect example of the phenomenon of the Jewish diaspora. Kaufmann was born into a German Lutheran family in 1921 and after discovering his Jewish heritage at age 11, converted to Judaism at about the time of Hitler’s ascendancy. He escaped Germany in 1939 and became a professor of philosophy at Princeton shortly after the war. Many others besides Hitchens and Kaufmann undoubtedly have an unknown Jewish heritage, rendering anti-Semitism all the more ludicrous. Or as Nietzshe put it: We hate most in others what we fear most in ourselves.

        Thanks again for the thought-provoking analysis, Joshua. I’m adding philosotroll to my favorites.

    • AC says:

      Bruno, I think you gotta back up the truck on that accusation….there were numerous factors, you can’t pin that all on Luther, take it back! Your being overly general & biased….search some other sources

    • Owyn says:


      Do some research (hell, wikipedia would help you out at this point) and you will discover that Luther was far from the founder of protestantism, he is merely the most famous founder among many. To attribute Holocaust causation to Luther is almost laughable from a historian’s perspective (Im an early modern german historian)

      • AC says:

        O, no they got the right guy, Luther was the big bad German who got the ball rolling….. and he his writings against the Jews deeply tarnished his legacy, however…..

  6. Owyn says:

    Mr Stein, you are a self proclaimed atheist, by that very definition this article is a farcical attempt to impose culpable guilt upon protestants.

    However, your argument is also invalid. Why is it that you focus upon dispensationalist protestants rather than protestants as a whole? Because I am sure that you researched this topic extensively I am also sure that you realize that dispensationalism is primarily the theological domain of Baptists/Charismatics and is in no way the dominant protestant eschatological viewpoint.

    Secondly, what defines a Jew? From that definition arises definitions of antisemitism. Without defining Jews you cannot really define antisemitism without descending into a meaningless morass of “you hurt my feelings, therefore you are an antisemite.”

    Your argument that the “Rature Ready” group are anti semites because they teach that Jews killed Christ is simply fallacious. You are attacking as antisemitic the internally held beliefs of some fringe Texans. In essence, you are holding these people morally culpable for thoughts rather than deeds. Methinks Big Brother would be proud.

  7. Owyn says:


    Do some research (hell, wikipedia would help you out at this point) and you will discover that Luther was far from the founder of protestantism, he is merely the most famous founder among many. To attribute Holocaust causation to Luther is almost laughable from a historian’s perspective (Im an early modern german historian)

    • Bruno says:

      You’re splitting hairs, Owyn. Luther was the primary figure in the establishment of Protestantism. I’m aware that there are 4 centuries of history between the 95 Theses and the Holocaust. Luther stoked the cauldron of hatred that culminated in the Holocaust. I find it ironic that one of the most influential figures in the history of Protestant Christianity- the religion of faith, hope and love, practiced such hatred. The sordid history of doctrinal disputes obscures the fact that the essence of Christianity is the practice of love. Luther’s legacy negates that simple truth.

      • Owyn says:

        The Lollards, Hussites, and Albigensians beg to differ Bruno.

        I do not argue that Luther was a bigot (as well as crazy). But to ascribe direct ideological blame for the holocaust to Luther is simply ridiculous from an academic standpoint. Interestingly, Arendt described an utterly different ideological cause.

  8. JDP says:

    the anti-Semitism i notice is mostly confined to the anti-Israeli far left (not that criticism is anti-Semitic, it’s just that this particular flavor has a tendency to metastasize into more conspiratorial rhetoric) and self-proclaimed paleoconservatives, who are equally anti-Israeli and have an unhealthy tribal obsession with American Jews supposedly dictating the whole of our foreign policy. speaking broadly. neither’s really religious in nature.

    i’m probably too plugged into the Internet though

  9. Antisemitism arose historically in the Christian West because of the insane idea that guilt of “the Jews” could be inherited, and secondly because of the idea that most Christians have that Jesus’ crucifixion can redeem the believer. Because Jews deny this–as I do myself–that makes them, in some respect, the Enemy.

    Luther’s “The Jews and their Lies” is the foundational document of German religious antisemitism. That’s simply historical fact.

    The main problem with interfaith dialogue today has nothing to do with theology. It has to do, sadly, with the fact that some powerful Jewish (and a fair number of Christian) leaders have promoted the idea that any criticism of the right-wing government of Israel is “antisemitism.” How can you have dialog when one side has declared that the most important moral issue of our time is off the table?

    Christians compound the problem by going along with this rather obvious political ploy by the Likudniks. What Christians really ought to do is figure out why Christians persecuted Jews for sixteen hundred years, a reality that makes Christianity a failed religion by any standard. Then it should acknowledge that Jews, like everybody else, are capable of aggression and evil. The inability to criticize Jews when they are wrong is the signature attitude of the last stage of Christian antisemitism.

    • AC says:

      Or we could get over it and move on…

      Lawerence, you obviously think Christianity is a mythical hoax so we won’t bother going there, most Jews GoP resenting liberals so we won’t worry about that….

      I’d be curious to see what you would do with Israel however

    • JDP says:

      “The inability to criticize Jews when they are wrong is the signature attitude of the last stage of Christian antisemitism.”

      i’m not sure what this means but anyway

      the problem is not that Israel can’t be critiqued, of course it can. the problem is that a not-insignificant amount of Israeli criticism _does_ verge on anti-Semitism. you see this with people referring to the U.S. government as ZOG (“Zionist-Occupied Government,”) with people claiming that all our interventions (whatever their merits or lack thereof) in the Middle East are done 100% in the service of Israel, with people solely blaming Israel for a lack of forward movement on any peace process without ever acknowledging the times in the past the Palestinians have blown it up, etc. etc. basically there’s a line between legitimate criticism and the sorts of conspiratorial rhetoric that bubbles up in these discussions.

      there’s also the fact that some of the people who generally detest Israel and engage in such rhetoric seem to have a conveniently strict definition of what amounts to anti-Semitism.

    • Owyn says:

      Lawrence, you have no concept of early modern German history. Go read the Wikipedia articles about the 13th century Magdeburg pogroms. Also, while amusing, your last sentence is ridiculous.

  10. AC says:

    Sessions, get a freakin edit button, this iPhone typing & autocorrect is killing me,

    I got fat fingers and always in a rush

  11. Jon says:

    [Yo Joshua. Saw this great web exposure of a big time “rapture” con man who partners with LaHaye of “Left Behind” fame. Rapture=biggest religion hoax ever!]

    Pretrib Rapture Pride

    by Bruce Rockwell

    Pretrib rapture promoters like Thomas Ice give the impression they know more than the early Church Fathers, the Reformers, the greatest Greek New Testament scholars including those who produced the KJV Bible, the founders of their favorite Bible schools, and even their own mentors!
    Ice’s mentor, Dallas Sem. president John Walvoord, couldn’t find anyone holding to pretrib before 1830 – and Walvoord called John Darby and his Brethren followers “the early pretribulationists” (RQ, pp. 160-62). Ice belittles Walvoord and claims that several pre-1830 persons, including “Pseudo-Ephraem” and a “Rev. Morgan Edwards,” taught a pretrib rapture. Even though the first one viewed Antichrist’s arrival as the only “imminent” event, Ice (and Grant Jeffrey) audaciously claim he expected an “imminent” pretrib rapture! And Ice (and John Bray) have covered up Edwards’ historicism which made a pretrib rapture impossible! Google historian Dave MacPherson’s “Deceiving and Being Deceived” for documentation on these and similar historical distortions.
    The same pretrib defenders, when combing ancient books, deviously read “pretrib” into phrases like “before Armageddon,” “before the final conflagration,” and “escape all these things”!
    BTW, the KJV translators’ other writings found in London’s famed British Library (where MacPherson has researched) don’t have even a hint of pretrib rapturism. Is it possible that Ice etc. have found pretrib “proof” in the KJV that its translators never found?
    Pretrib merchandisers like Ice claim that nothing is better pretrib proof than Rev. 3:10. They also cover up “Famous Rapture Watchers” (on Google) which shows how the greatest Greek NT scholars of all time interpreted it.
    Pretrib didn’t flourish in America much before the 1909 Scofield Bible which has pretribby “explanatory notes” in its margins. Not seen in the margins was jailed forger Scofield’s criminal record throughout his life that David Lutzweiler has documented in his recent book “The Praise of Folly” which is available online.
    Biola University’s doctrinal statement says Christ’s return is “premillennial” and “before the Tribulation.” Although universities stand for “academic freedom,” Biola has added these narrow, restrictive phrases – non-essentials the founders purposely didn’t include in their original doctrinal statement when Biola was just a small Bible institute! And other Christian schools have also belittled their founders.
    Ice, BTW, has a “Ph.D” issued by a tiny Texas school that wasn’t authorized to issue degrees! Ice now says that he’s working on another “Ph.D” via the University of Wales in Britain. For light on the degrees of Ice’s scholarliness, Google “Bogus degree scandal prompts calls to wind up University of Wales,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “be careful in polemics – Peripatetic Learning,” and “Walvoord Melts Ice.” Also Google “Thomas Ice (Hired Gun)” – featured by media luminary Joe Ortiz on his Jan. 30, 2013 “End Times Passover” blog.
    Other fascinating Google articles include “The Unoriginal John Darby,” “X-raying Margaret,” “Edward Irving in Unnerving,” “Pretrib Rapture Politics,” “Pretrib Rapture Secrets,” “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty,” “Pretrib Hypocrisy,” “Pretrib Rapture Secrecy,” and “Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism” – most from the author of “The Rapture Plot,” the most accurate documentation on pretrib rapture history.
    Can anyone guess who the last proud pretrib rapture holdout will be?
    (Postscript: For another jolt or two Google “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)

  12. Darrel says:

    Hey there!
    This is my first comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and tell you I really enjoy reading your posts.
    Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same subjects?


    More to come on my internet site Darrel

Leave a Reply

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.