Titlebook: Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850; Andrew Crome Book 2018 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 Ch

Diverticulum

書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850被引頻次




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850年度引用




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850讀者反饋




書目名稱Christian Zionism and English National Identity, 1600–1850讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

guzzle

cipher

Favorable

火花

,“Ignorance, Infatuation, and, Perhaps, Insanity!”: Jewish Restoration and National Crisis, 1793–17990s. The first part of the chapter provides an overview of Judeo-centric ideas from 1753–1790, examining particularly John Gill and Joseph Priestley. After providing background on Brothers, the chapter examines his followers’ use of restorationist ideas. In particular, Brothers’s concept that many o

聲音刺耳

,“Direct the Eyes of the Jews to England”: The Jerusalem Bishopric Controversy, 1840–1841,elopments in Judeo-centric ideas from 1795, concentrating particularly on the formation of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. The chapter then traces the focus on Isaiah 18 as a prophecy of an English-led restoration of the Jews prior to their conversion. The final secti

聲音刺耳

Ascribe

Conclusion,ough cautious in proposing wider applications of its historically contingent findings, it suggests the possible application of this book’s theoretical approach to other national manifestations of Christian Zionism, particularly in the United States.

滑稽

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137464729 the historiography of “elect nationhood”, which suggests a likely clash between the “elect” nation and ethnic Jews. Instead, it suggests a model of “chosen” nationhood in which the nation is defined in relation to their treatment of Israel. This portrays the Jew as a positive “other”. This is analy

Palter