AP Video: The Nation-State of Israel & the Church

[RZehr]

[Ken]

Can you summarize the gist so we don't have to watch a 54 min video?

[RZehr]

Can you summarize the gist so we don't have to watch a 54 min video?

Sorry no. Not now. Not good at that. Either watch or not. I watch (listen) at 2X. I actually like the first one on Revelation more. I learned more, and it really resonates at truth to me. This is sort of a continuation of the first one, but in a different vein, so it isn’t quite a true “part 2”.

[Josh]

I like to cut and paste a transcript into Copilot and request a summary.

[RZehr]

I like to cut and paste a transcript into Copilot and request a summary.

I don’t know how to get a transcript or know what Copilot is. How?

[Josh]

I like to cut and paste a transcript into Copilot and request a summary.

I don’t know how to get a transcript or know what Copilot is. How?

You can cut and paste a transcript on YouTube.

[Soloist]

Can you summarize the gist so we don't have to watch a 54 min video?

Sorry no. Not now. Not good at that. Either watch or not. I watch (listen) at 2X. I actually like the first one on Revelation more. I learned more, and it really resonates at truth to me. This is sort of a continuation of the first one, but in a different vein, so it isn’t quite a true “part 2”.

Wife: I was listening to this on CloudVeil, and I ended up putting it up to squirrel speed to get it over with to see if it would get better, and I was just terribly disappointed with it. They barely even touched on the Israel conflict or secularism of Israel, which I guess might have been their point in avoiding that hot topic, and it just seemed to be preterist (I think I’m using that word right?) versus dispensationalist argument, where they were just saying their view was right and smart and the other view was wrong and stupid. Not that I’m big into the left behind stuff either (more of a panmillennial if you can even put a name to it), but it didn’t seem like they actually knew all the arguments people use, like prophecies having more than one fulfillment, etc…
Some of his arguments were decent, but I suppose I just didn’t like the idea that anyone who disagreed with him didn’t understand the New Testament ect. he seemed as dogmatic as some of the hard core dispensationalists.

Edit: I did like his section against replacement theory, though, and his talk on Romans 11.