The word predict is not the same as prophecying something.
The multitude of failed and false prophecy's in no way mean that Jesus is not coming.
Truly, prophecy is telling God's truth, be it in the past, present or future. Were one to make a prediction, it had better come true or it is not prophecy. This doesn't stop the modern understanding that "prophecy is future-telling", a concept in minds I'd very much like to correct. It's
to this base erroneous understanding I intended the original post.
Of course Christ will return. He said it. At issue is how the message is being poorly, or in cases with intended embellished manner, portrayed.
Your reply is long, and while I'd like to give it the attention the consideration deserves, for the purpose of this forum I feel I should remain brief.
Irenaeus' most popular work was against Gnosticism in his day, or at least his perspective of Gnosticism. He also wrote extensively on a manner of "identifying the Antichrist" (where capital A in this manner infers one person central to events in end-times interpretation from Revelation). While I can't find a precise date of "500", perhaps because "I" can't find the extant reference, he certainly pursued the issue in the manner. For the sake of argument, for now, we can take your position as true.
Newton's position, as Sumrall, Robertson and Lindsey
do belong, I feel, because there's no room for half-way, "apparent intentional lack of commitment". To many people they are authoritative, they have a responsibility while speaking to people less wise, and one utterance carries just as much weight as prefacing "this is really true", because people can and will fundamentally understand
their words are true, prefaced or otherwise.
The argument against inclusion of Hagee and Biltz appears to carry some fallacious logic of non sequitur. If a spiritual leader stands up and says, "Let me tell you of true religion, let me tell you of Daniel, and oh, by the way, blood moon", are we to presume the person just decided to cut the monologue short and start talking about something else? "Well they didn't specifically say...", well, they did as inference, and this is not without precedent for them. It's not as if they say something to effect of, "oh and by the way snorkel", leaving the bewildered observer to question if Jesus was returning to a locality with coral reefs. What they do is intentional, no less formulaic, so that if,
when, it later pans out to be bogus, they have the "out" that "you just didn't get it".
Anyway, your reply was well thought out and thank you for it. I just don't agree with all of it.