 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The "boycott, divestment, sanction" movement against Israel - is it wrong?
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Which ISTM means the whole OT is probably out for you or you simply do not have a belief system that includes it at all. I doubt Steve gives a rats ass about your views and I'd be surprised if anyone else does either. I do not read him as trying to impose his views unless you interpret having a different opinion to yours is doing that. We all tend to argue passionately but is that not the norm?
There is a difference in arguing passionately and trying to tell other people what they should - or do believe - when they're telling you that they don't.
In my belief system, people should be treated humanely and honestly and not in a particular way because an old book makes a land claim.
You can make that land claim and it should be looked at alongside all the other land claims and given exactly the same amount of credibility.
quote:
The New Testament Jesus was certainly concerned with the land. "Jerusalem Jerusalem how often I wanted to gather you as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not. Now, your house is left unto you desolate" There is also the "one stone shall not be left upon another" reference in Matthew 24. And you shall not see me again until you say
" Baruch haba beshem adonai".(Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord). IOW Jesus has promised to return to the land when its inhabitants call him back.
I think that's utter bunk.
quote:
Of course, you can feel free to reject theologies of the land or create,as many do, theologies that do not include the land but to do that you have to allegorise and spiritualise and ignore much scripture as Augustine did and the Catholics do.
And... there it is. The root of this is anti-Catholic Protestantism.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Logic is remorseless isn't it? Hard to beat. One can always pretend it's not there I suppose. Ignore it. But my parents were married prior to my conception, thank you.
And DO I acknowledge your gracious acknowledgement of your being wrong in your fifth rate hermeneutic.
Rubbish in rubbish out. Your premises determine your conclusion and in your case they are impenetrable. I mean your post modern world view. ISTM you are so influenced by perceived abuses from fundamentalists that the baby is down the plug hole.
I can't understand the postmodern worldview for you. Its Copernican premises are too simple compared with your Ptolemaic ones obviously. Which is an insult to Ptolemy, his reasoning was based on one false premise.
You justify the massive geopolitical abuse of Zionism perpetrated by the world on the Arab people as God's will based on a counterfactual declaration that no one else on Earth asserts, that no one believes, including you, because it is impossible, that Ezekiel 36:24 is contextually post-exilic. You have to 'believe' that so that the return from exile doesn't fulfil it and that at last the 1948 show can be abused to fill that void you, most postmodernly, have made up.
Martin I do get post modernism and it's insights. They are considerable but not the last word. The reader is empowered by the attention drawn to his/ her preconceptions and contingencies. IMV this is trumped by scripture. God reaches into time and objectively says "I AM"
There is no fucking geo political abuse of Zionism. if there is one it was perpetrated by the UN in 1947 not by Zionists. That idea is your delusion and there is lots and lots of scripture that suggests the restoration of Jew to original real estate is God's plan not just Ezekiel and I personally am not a Zionist AND I agree with you that Ezekiel was a prophet of the exile. Remember that it happened in 3 stages. He prophesied much of the book before Jerusalem fell.
I object to post modernism because it unilaterally tries to proclaim the 'truth' that all truth stories can't be true because IT says so and you, mate, seem to have bought the package.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's easy Eutychus. All you HAVE to believe is that Ezekiel 36:24 is contextually post-exilic so that the return from exile can't fulfil it. Like HAVING to pretend that Isaiah 8 doesn't fulfil Isaiah 7.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You forgot to add in your opinion or are you speaking ex cathedra?
Don't you start on this nonsense.
quote:
I know quite a few Christians outside this little pond that have not yet started a crusade yet consider current Israel prophetically significant. Of course they do not all agree as to how.
There are plenty of ways to lend undue importance to current Israel that fall short of starting a crusade, and you know it.
I stand by my contention that the lesson of history is that identifying contemporaneous geopolitical entites with biblical ones is a practice that has failed repeatedly. It is also a singularly egocentric view of history since it assumes (as has every other failed prophet of the past) that our age is the subject of these prophecies.
I grew up hearing stuff like, Jesus absolutely had to come back by 1982 at the latest as a result of the foundation of Israel in 1948. I couldn't work out that maths even at the time, but I'm through with that kind of bullshit.
Well most of that works for me.
Yes very dumb wasn't it. In my case he was back by 1978. Seems like a straw man though. Late great planet earth Type thinking? How is that relevant? It seems that everyone has got a big back story when it comes to this argument. To say modern Israel is prophetically important is NOT to commit to a second coming next Thursday.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's easy Eutychus. All you HAVE to believe is that Ezekiel 36:24 is contextually post-exilic so that the return from exile can't fulfil it. Like HAVING to pretend that Isaiah 8 doesn't fulfil Isaiah 7.
Never said that did I?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How is modern Israel prophetically important in the Nevi'im?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Late Great Planet Earth is absolutely typical, in my view, of the hasty identification of contemporary nation states with biblical entities.
Contemporary Israel might attract attention in that it's situated in the same (general) area as the promised land was, but there are enough discrepancies, non sequiturs, and nasty results of pursuing "Israel has a right to the land" thinking to give me serious pause before going any further. Starting with "my kingdom is not of this world", moving on to deconstruct dispensationalism, and so on.
I think it's far more likely, especially given the outcomes, that Israel exploits some Christians' pro-Israel sympathies than that God is somehow fufilling OT prophecy through it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's easy Eutychus. All you HAVE to believe is that Ezekiel 36:24 is contextually post-exilic so that the return from exile can't fulfil it. Like HAVING to pretend that Isaiah 8 doesn't fulfil Isaiah 7.
Never said that did I?
Yes you did:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Martin 60: What's that 2,600 year old Exilic 'prophecy' that was fulfilled within a century got to do with the Holocaust, oil, British,....
Your first line here is untrue. This post -exilic prophecy was not fulfilled in the return from Babylon.
Remember now?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And agreed Eutychus. Sorry, my question was directed at Jamat, who insists on making Ezekiel 36:24, from 571 BCE at the latest, apply to 1948 and not 539 BCE from 32 years later.
[ 07. November 2016, 09:55: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Martin60:
It's easy Eutychus. All you HAVE to believe is that Ezekiel 36:24 is contextually post-exilic so that the return from exile can't fulfil it. Like HAVING to pretend that Isaiah 8 doesn't fulfil Isaiah 7.
Never said that did I?
Yes you did:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Martin 60: What's that 2,600 year old Exilic 'prophecy' that was fulfilled within a century got to do with the Holocaust, oil, British,....
Your first line here is untrue. This post -exilic prophecy was not fulfilled in the return from Babylon.
Remember now? [/QujUOTE]
Not sure what part of that is relevant. That EZE is not post exilic? Certainly true. apologies. That the return prophecies are not fulfilled fully. Well, I do believe that they extend further than the end of the captivity period. I was focused on Is 7 and 8. I never said the Is 7:14 was irrelevant to the birth in Is 8 though.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Late Great Planet Earth is absolutely typical, in my view, of the hasty identification of contemporary nation states with biblical entities.
Contemporary Israel might attract attention in that it's situated in the same (general) area as the promised land was, but there are enough discrepancies, non sequiturs, and nasty results of pursuing "Israel has a right to the land" thinking to give me serious pause before going any further. Starting with "my kingdom is not of this world", moving on to deconstruct dispensationalism, and so on.
I think it's far more likely, especially given the outcomes, that Israel exploits some Christians' pro-Israel sympathies than that God is somehow fufilling OT prophecy through it.
Undoubtedly true but does it preclude the possibility that God is providentially at work here? You see looking at lots of " I will return you" scriptures in the OT suggests to me he is. To me it is not about anyone's rights but whether God is showing himself. The kingdom is certainly spiritual but there is a thread of future kingdom "All the earth will be filled with my glory" etc.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You see looking at lots of " I will return you" scriptures in the OT suggests to me he is. To me it is not about anyone's rights but whether God is showing himself. The kingdom is certainly spiritual but there is a thread of future kingdom "All the earth will be filled with my glory" etc.
I'm going to assume that you will accept the standard approach to prophecy that the purpose is to provide hope, reassurance and incentive to the original hearers that they may repent of their sins, trust in God, and live out lives of obedience. Where that prophecy looks forward (and, most prophecy addresses the clear present not the future) it does so as either a warning of failure to be obedient to the message or of hope for that original audience. The "you will return" prophecies certainly fall into that category - pre-Exile warning "change or you will be scattered among the nations, but I will bring you back" or Exilic "remain faithful and you will return to the land I promised".
The question here is entirely the extent to which those prophecies apply beyond the immediate context they were originally given. Many Jews would say they will find fulfillment in the Messiah - that certainly appears to have been the view during the Roman period when clearly the Kingdom of Israel had not been restored with a foreign king, a puppet to the Roman Empire, on the throne, not a restoration of the greatness of the kingdom under David and Solomon, and an expectation of a coming Messiah to restore the Kingdom.
Of course, as Christians, we would agree that those prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, but that the fulfillment is spiritual rather than physical - in Christ, Jews and Gentiles were restored to God and a new Kingdom established - but one that is not of this world, not confined to a geographical place.
It therefore follows that if these still have a further fulfillment then it is a third level on the text: fulfilled once under the restoration of Ezra, Nehemiah etc; fulfilled once in the spiritual Kingdom of Christ; fulfilled again in 1948 by UN resolutions. And, potentially, once again fulfilled with the Second Coming. The biggest problem is that the potential third fulfillment is lacking a Messiah figure - unless you want to claim that the UN is the Messiah for Israel.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
There's a quote (author unknown) to the effect of: "When Jesus returns, Jews will say 'welcome' and Christians will say 'welcome back'".
I presume Muslims would be somewhere in the middle, since they honor Jesus as the second-greatest prophet, and think he will convert to Islam.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
In a bit of an attempt to clarify after some rather scattered sniping....
1) As far as I can see, there is no justification for a Jewish state of Israel except in the notion of God's covenant promises through Abraham. Without that, the Jews are in exactly the position of other long-displaced peoples - e.g., the Anglo-Saxons or the Celts - who can realistically have no special claim over their ancestral lands against those who now live in those lands.
2) What should be the Christian reaction to this claim? And to answer that involves looking into the NT teachings about the 'transition' from Old to New Testament and what is said of the place of Jews in the New Covenant.
3) In the NT portrayal it is Christians - Jew and Gentile together now that Jesus has 'broken down the wall of separation' between them - who are God's people, God's holy nation, kingdom of priests etc. Christians are 'in continuity' with the OT and its promises; those who reject the Divine Messiah Jesus have stepped outside that continuity - by God's grace they are not cast off altogether, but they have no covenant rights. They are not therefore entitled to 'The Land' even though they are ethnic Jews.
4) As "God's holy nation" it is if anything Christians who are entitled to 'The Land'; but there are all kinds of other factors in Christianity which make it massively inappropriate for Christians to make such a claim in this world - we are happy to await a fulfilment in the "New heavens and new earth' after Judgement Day. In the meantime we get on with enjoying the greater blessings we have through Jesus, and with expanding his 'kingdom not of this world' by seeking converts throughout the world, ourselves living as citizens of the kingdom of heaven in exile/diaspora.
How do we interpret the current existence of a Jewish state of Israel?
A) NOT as a fulfilment of the OT covenant.
B) NOT therefore as something we are obliged to support regardless of other issues like how ethically the state of Israel behaves in other ways.
C) Clearly as an act of Divine Providence. But we might disagree with Zionists about the purpose of it. Among other possibilities we might consider the idea that God has allowed this as a kind of "Have the Land so you can find out how unsatisfactory it actually is, so that you will look beyond it to the heavenly Zion brought to you through Jesus as your Messiah/King".
D) Israel is a fact - even if an arguably undesirable fact. It is a threat to world peace. We need to develop Christian approaches to that based on the NT teaching; and at the heart of that, the simple idea that the true fulfilment of the Covenant is through Jesus.... It's not our job to 'sanction' Israel - but it is our job to treat Israel and its activities critically (in the best sense of the word) and respond in a measured way.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thing is, Jamat, the injunctions to become like little children or that the 'foolishness of God is greater than man's wisdom' and so on from the NT aren't proof-texts for ignorance.
I'm quite happy to accept, along with Mark Twain, that the continued existence of the Jews despite centuries of pogroms and persecutions - often from within the Christian Church of course - has a providential element about it.
It's a far step from that, though, to taking a rather reductionist view of the decline of the British Empire in Sodom and Gomorrah / they dissed Israel terms ...
You accuse the RCs of overly allegorising things - and with justification - and yet I've known fundamentalist or conservative Protestant groups do the same.
I well remember attempts among the Open Brethren to dismiss the moral implications of some of the Parables - such as the Good Samaritan or the Sheep and the Goats - by overly spiritualising these to refer to Israel and the way 'Sheep nations' and 'Goat nations' treated 'natural' Israel.
Very conveniently, it took the onus off us and placed it at all at a geopolitical level that we could nothing about it ... thereby leaving us free to ignore the world around us and stay in our pietistic little bubbles ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's not just the nasty old Catholics who have a case to answer on this one.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I fixed your quoting.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's easy Eutychus. All you HAVE to believe is that Ezekiel 36:24 is contextually post-exilic so that the return from exile can't fulfil it. Like HAVING to pretend that Isaiah 8 doesn't fulfil Isaiah 7. [/qb]
Never said that did I?
Yes you did:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Martin 60: What's that 2,600 year old Exilic 'prophecy' that was fulfilled within a century got to do with the Holocaust, oil, British,....
Your first line here is untrue. This post -exilic prophecy was not fulfilled in the return from Babylon.
Remember now?
Not sure what part of that is relevant.
They're your posts, you decide.
quote:
That EZE is not post exilic?
There we are.
quote:
Certainly true. apologies.
An excellent start.
quote:
That the return prophecies are not fulfilled fully.
A regression. I presume you intended that as a question.
quote:
Well, I do believe that they extend further than the end of the captivity period.
Why?
quote:
I was focused on Is 7 and 8. I never said the Is 7:14 was irrelevant to the birth in Is 8 though.
So Ezekiel 36 was completely fulfilled from 32 years just like Isaiah 7 was completely fulfilled within 2 years and 1 chapter.
What's left?
By a superior hermeneutic of course, not any now invalid one.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
We have a fundamental insight, which comes all the way through from Genesis to the Revelation: God is the creator of all, and loves the whole of his creation. After the flood, the rainbow was not just set over a small corner of creation, as a special site of God's favour. I see no evidence other than exceptionalism and special pleading that this has changed.
I know people can't accept that rhetorical figures are part of the natural functioning of texts and arguments, but they are. So much of the biblical literature consists of texts assembled to communicate ideas about their authors and the objects of their identification which are a million miles from their literal content.
It is tragic that this is so widely ignored, because it leads to thuggery, abuse of power and projection of a history of suffering onto other people who have rather less powerful friends.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In a bit of an attempt to clarify after some rather scattered sniping....
1) As far as I can see, there is no justification for a Jewish state of Israel except in the notion of God's covenant promises through Abraham. Without that, the Jews are in exactly the position of other long-displaced peoples - e.g., the Anglo-Saxons or the Celts - who can realistically have no special claim over their ancestral lands against those who now live in those lands.
As the exception doesn't exist, then that is the case.
quote:
2) What should be the Christian reaction to this claim? And to answer that involves looking into the NT teachings about the 'transition' from Old to New Testament and what is said of the place of Jews in the New Covenant.
No it doesn't.
quote:
3) In the NT portrayal it is Christians - Jew and Gentile together now that Jesus has 'broken down the wall of separation' between them - who are God's people, God's holy nation, kingdom of priests etc. Christians are 'in continuity' with the OT and its promises; those who reject the Divine Messiah Jesus have stepped outside that continuity - by God's grace they are not cast off altogether, but they have no covenant rights. They are not therefore entitled to 'The Land' even though they are ethnic Jews.
The Ten Command Old Covenant is dead, there is no land entitlement for anyone.
quote:
4) As "God's holy nation" it is if anything Christians who are entitled to 'The Land';
No it isn't.
quote:
but there are all kinds of other factors in Christianity which make it massively inappropriate for Christians to make such a claim in this world - we are happy to await a fulfilment in the "New heavens and new earth' after Judgement Day. In the meantime we get on with enjoying the greater blessings we have through Jesus, and with expanding his 'kingdom not of this world' by seeking converts throughout the world, ourselves living as citizens of the kingdom of heaven in exile/diaspora.
As you agree.
quote:
How do we interpret the current existence of a Jewish state of Israel?
A) NOT as a fulfilment of the OT covenant.
Correct.
quote:
B) NOT therefore as something we are obliged to support regardless of other issues like how ethically the state of Israel behaves in other ways.
Correct.
quote:
C) Clearly as an act of Divine Providence. But we might disagree with Zionists about the purpose of it. Among other possibilities we might consider the idea that God has allowed this as a kind of "Have the Land so you can find out how unsatisfactory it actually is, so that you will look beyond it to the heavenly Zion brought to you through Jesus as your Messiah/King".
Incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with God. There is no other possibility.
quote:
D) Israel is a fact - even if an arguably undesirable fact. It is a threat to world peace. We need to develop Christian approaches to that based on the NT teaching; and at the heart of that, the simple idea that the true fulfilment of the Covenant is through Jesus.... It's not our job to 'sanction' Israel - but it is our job to treat Israel and its activities critically (in the best sense of the word) and respond in a measured way.
Who's job is it to sanction Israel? Who's job is it to compensate the Arabs for the imperialist crime of forcing aliens on their land?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Riiiight Mr Cresswell, Sensei.
There are 'only' three valid periods which can fulfil OT prophecy often blurred with apocalyptic at most one would suggest:
1) From the present to the near future of the prophecy. Isaiah 7, Ezekiel 36. Daniel 11 etc.
2) The time of Christ and His contemporaries' generation. That includes the 44 ones claimed by Jesus and his chroniclers and those that may have dual or triple fulfilment with those above ((1) history) and below ((3) a literal Parousia beyond Resurrection Sunday and Pentecost) outside the Incarnation.
I'm not aware of any OT prophecies outside the Incarnational (and they only work by a very stretched hermeneutic at best without exception I posit. Some don't at all of course, like of the virgin birth.) that could apply only to the first generation, to events up to and including the sacking of Jerusalem by Titus in 76. Jesus revealed that apocalyptically on Olivet.
I'm happy to be disabused of my ignorance: that there are OT prophecies unquestionably fulfilled only in the history surrounding the Incarnation.
3) The end of history. The existence of the state of Israel may cause that in the next thousand years in some fantasy scenarios, it certainly won't in ten thousand. What OT prophecy-apocalyptic - which includes raging cabbalistic fantasy - was not fulfilled historically or transcendentally in Christ?
(Likewise for His Olivet prophecy, Paul's and John's apocalyptic fulfilled from Pentecost to the Jewish War.)
None was fulfilled around 1948 +/- 30, 50 years that's for certain. Or 1941-45 in the Holocaust for that matter. Except as recurring tropes.
Is there anything left? Anything yet to be fulfilled?
I can see that there well could be, but would rather see what anyone else thinks.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm, minimally
What OT prophecy-apocalyptic - which includes raging cabbalistic fantasy - was not fulfilled historically or transcendentally in Christ?
(Likewise for His Olivet prophecy, Paul's and John's apocalyptic fulfilled from Pentecost to the Jewish War.)
should be
(Likewise for His Olivet prophecy, Paul's and John's apocalyptic fulfilled in the Jewish War.)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In a bit of an attempt to clarify after some rather scattered sniping....
1) As far as I can see, there is no justification for a Jewish state of Israel except in the notion of God's covenant promises through Abraham. Without that, the Jews are in exactly the position of other long-displaced peoples - e.g., the Anglo-Saxons or the Celts - who can realistically have no special claim over their ancestral lands against those who now live in those lands.
As the exception doesn't exist, then that is the case.
Trouble is, the Abrahamic covenant does exist and as interpreted by many Jews without the new covenant brought by Jesus, it leads those Jews to believe they are entitled to 'the Land'. And of course that is not acceptable to non-Jews in particular the Arabs displaced and otherwise affected by the existence of Israel.
The question here is how Christians interpret the situation and whether Christians are required on biblical grounds to support the state of Israel.
quote:
quote:
2) What should be the Christian reaction to this claim? And to answer that involves looking into the NT teachings about the 'transition' from Old to New Testament and what is said of the place of Jews in the New Covenant.
No it doesn't.
Answering the question "How should Christians interpret the position of the state of Israel?" DOES and MUST involve Christians considering the NT teaching that may affect the continued application of the Abrahamic covenant to ethnic Jews.
quote:
quote:
3) In the NT portrayal it is Christians - Jew and Gentile together now that Jesus has 'broken down the wall of separation' between them - who are God's people, God's holy nation, kingdom of priests etc.
Christians are 'in continuity' with the OT and its promises; those who reject the Divine Messiah Jesus have stepped outside that continuity - by God's grace they are not cast off altogether, but they have no covenant rights. They are not therefore entitled to 'The Land' even though they are ethnic Jews.
The Ten Command Old Covenant is dead, there is no land entitlement for anyone.
(slight re-punctuation of my original to make for easier reading without affecting the meaning)
Problem 1) The Ten Commandment covenant is not dead in the opinion of Jews, so until they can be persuaded otherwise they are likely to carry on acting on it.
Problem 2) The Abrahamic Covenant is actually the more important one here, the one which initially includes the promise of 'The Land' and is the one the NT specifically says Christians are heirs to.
quote:
quote:
4) As "God's holy nation" it is if anything Christians who are entitled to 'The Land';
No it isn't.
As co-heirs of the Abrahamic covenant with the faithful Jews, Yes it is! I think maybe you jumped in a bit quickly with that flat denial here, without seeing how my following statements affect the point...?
quote:
quote:
but there are all kinds of other factors in Christianity which make it massively inappropriate for Christians to make such a claim in this world - we are happy to await a fulfilment in the "New heavens and new earth' after Judgement Day. In the meantime we get on with enjoying the greater blessings we have through Jesus, and with expanding his 'kingdom not of this world' by seeking converts throughout the world, ourselves living as citizens of the kingdom of heaven in exile/diaspora.
As you agree.
quote:
How do we interpret the current existence of a Jewish state of Israel?
A) NOT as a fulfilment of the OT covenant.
Correct.
quote:
B) NOT therefore as something we are obliged to support regardless of other issues like how ethically the state of Israel behaves in other ways.
Correct.
quote:
C) Clearly as an act of Divine Providence. But we might disagree with Zionists about the purpose of it. Among other possibilities we might consider the idea that God has allowed this as a kind of "Have the Land so you can find out how unsatisfactory it actually is, so that you will look beyond it to the heavenly Zion brought to you through Jesus as your Messiah/King".
Incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with God. There is no other possibility.
If it happens, then it has much to do with God. The question is,"God has let this happen, how do we interpret that?" My suggestion on why God might permit it is one of the more obvious 'other possibilities' as opposed to the assumption that God actually fully approves of the setting up of Israel....
quote:
D) Israel is a fact - even if an arguably undesirable fact. It is a threat to world peace. We need to develop Christian approaches to that based on the NT teaching; and at the heart of that, the simple idea that the true fulfilment of the Covenant is through Jesus.... It's not our job to 'sanction' Israel - but it is our job to treat Israel and its activities critically (in the best sense of the word) and respond in a measured way.
Who's job is it to sanction Israel? Who's job is it to compensate the Arabs for the imperialist crime of forcing aliens on their land? [/QUOTE]
Given over a century of 'Zionism' seeking the Jewish return to Israel, and Israel having existed for all but a few months of my 68 years of life, there are no easy answers here - or at least there are, but there aren't many people happy to see the likely bloodshed. I guess arguably the 'imperialist powers' should pay; but how will we make them do so?
What is needed is a peaceable solution; and one of the things that could help that would be a Christian recognition of the points I've been making, so that there won't be 'hawkish' Christians supporting everything the state of Israel does.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The Abrahamic Covenant is actually the more important one here, the one which initially includes the promise of 'The Land' and is the one the NT specifically says Christians are heirs to (...)
As "God's holy nation" it is if anything Christians who are entitled to 'The Land'
(...)
As co-heirs of the Abrahamic covenant with the faithful Jews, Yes it is!
Let me get this straight.
You think that as heirs to the Abrahamic Covenant, Christians are heirs to "The Land"?
My mind is boggled: and even more so because of your Anabaptist tendencies.
Please explain how, in view of the fact that the current state of Israel is an entirely secular one, you are not advocating some sort of unholy alliance of the temporal and spiritual of the kind you are so wont to decry in other contexts.
All the more so in that you utterly refuse to envisage any sort of accommodation of established churches but instantly argue the need for some sort of accomodation - a spiritual one, no less - with the state of Israel "because it's there"? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Steve Langton: Onchocerciasis happens. Is that much to do with God?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eutychus, by the way ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
[ 08. November 2016, 14:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
You think that as heirs to the Abrahamic Covenant, Christians are heirs to "The Land"? My mind is boggled: and even more so because of your Anabaptist tendencies.
Christians are heirs to the whole blessing. Logically that includes "the Land". And logically, Jews who are NOT Christians are outside the covenant, due to their breach of faith, and are not entitled - they don't fulfil the basic condition.
That doesn't mean that Christians should be getting an army together to take the Land for themselves. And BTW it does seem that such a thought was one of many contributing factors in the Crusades with their attempt to set up a Christian kingdom in Palestine.
The point is, as I said, there are a whole raft of other aspects of Christianity which would make such action wildly inappropriate. As in, basically, the Anabaptist view of things. Which is one reason why the Anabaptist view is important here, as opposed to the state church view which sponsored the Crusades.
The point also is that when you have grasped the blessings of Christianity, you don't need the physical land. As Hebrews puts it, and it applies as much to Gentile Christians as to Christian Jews, in coming to Jesus and entering his Kingdom, you have come to the deeper reality of which the 'Promised Land' was only a shadow/foreshadowing. That deeper reality will be fully experienced in the 'new heavens and new earth' after the last judgement.
Those Christians who currently support the state of Israel as supposedly a fulfilment of prophecy have failed to grasp this point. They're also often either deeply into - or confused by (!) - the 'Left Behind' version of eschatology which often portrays things as if the Gentile Church was something of a 'plan B' with 'normal service to be resumed' in the reconstituted state of Israel.
Whereas if you understand the Church as fully in continuity with the OT people of God, you also understand that there is no place for a resumption of a state of Israel in 'kingdom of this world' form in the present age. So you won't be a hawkish supporter of Israel as if God must automatically approve that 'kingdom of this world' and the threat it poses to world peace....
As Paul says, Israel is not totally 'cast off'; but their future is to be saved through their Messianic/Davidic/Divine King Jesus, like other Christians. The state of Israel is not in a special position from a Christian viewpoint.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Steve Langton.
The Abrahamic, Mosaic (Old, First, Ten Commandment), Priestly and Davidic Covenants are all - like ALL prophecy - completely fulfilled in Christ.
Its territory is the human and post-human cosmos. Not a bit of Arab desert.
There are no complexities, no exceptions, no yeah buts.
[ 08. November 2016, 14:34: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Martin60
quote:
Its territory is the human and post-human cosmos. Not a bit of Arab desert.
I'm actually kind of agreeing with you. But being woolly about where that bit of Jewish desert fits in, and how seriously we take God's promises about it, can potentially have awkward consequences, which in the view I've put are not left hanging to cause trouble.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
if you understand the Church as fully in continuity with the OT people of God, you also understand that there is no place for a resumption of a state of Israel in 'kingdom of this world' form in the present age.
appears to me, specifically the words "no place", to be in complete contradiction to your earlier assertions: quote:
The Abrahamic Covenant is actually the more important one here, the one which initially includes the promise of 'The Land' and is the one the NT specifically says Christians are heirs to
(...)
As "God's holy nation" it is if anything Christians who are entitled to 'The Land'
Meanwhile...
quote:
Israel is not totally 'cast off'; but their future is to be saved through their Messianic/Davidic/Divine King Jesus, like other Christians. The state of Israel is not in a special position from a Christian viewpoint.
Precisely. So there should be no special treatment of the state of Israel compared to its neighbours (or indeed anybody else) on allegedly Scriptural territorial grounds.
And that's before anyone's even started to try and establish a consensus on just who or what Paul might mean by "all Israel".
As far as I'm concerned, the Jerusalem from above is our mother.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Martin60
quote:
Its territory is the human and post-human cosmos. Not a bit of Arab desert.
I'm actually kind of agreeing with you. But being woolly about where that bit of Jewish desert fits in, and how seriously we take God's promises about it, can potentially have awkward consequences, which in the view I've put are not left hanging to cause trouble.
It's called pruning Steve. Cut all the dross, the confusion, the deadwood off. Shear that wool. In fact have a shit, shave, shower AND haircut. K.I.S.S. You know the drill.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
appears to me, specifically the words "no place", to be in complete contradiction to your earlier assertions:
How so? Did you miss the rather important qualification 'in kingdom of this world form'?
Yes, there may be a place in God's purposes for the attempt to restore Israel in a form separated from the Messianic kingship of Jesus - but not as a fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant; perhaps, as I suggested, as something permitted precisely to show how mistaken that idea is....
Also by Eutychus;
quote:
So there should be no special treatment of the state of Israel compared to its neighbours (or indeed anybody else) on allegedly Scriptural territorial grounds.
That we are agreed on - just I've tied up a loose end by registering the way that, since Jesus, the promises apply to the Church rather than to an ethnic Jewish nation.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Steve baby, you're not listening, cut the crap. Your second paragraph is superfluous nonsense. Stop making shit up.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Steve: you're doing it again.
You can't simultaneously argue that there is no place for a kingdom-of-this-world restoration of Israel
and
assert (or at least hint heavily) that the Church is heir to the Abrahamic Covenant and thus "the promise of 'The [physical] Land'", indeed is "entitled" to it.
Do you explicitly reject the notion of a geopolitical, territorial restoration of 'The Land', or do you think it's a current, valid, tangible, earthly promise that is not obsolete but simply an option not exercised - merely left to one side by the Church as "massively inappropriate" in favour of another, better promise?
[ 08. November 2016, 18:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Explicitly, if the Church is to operate as a 'kingdom not of this world' and ipso facto pacifist, the option of the Church occupying 'The Land/Israel' in the present era can only be achieved by disobedience to Jesus - and since obedience is the basic condition of the covenant, the Church trying that would ipso facto also be disqualified....
But importantly, asserting that the right belongs with the faithful, that is the Church as God's holy people in the present age, clarifies and simplifies things; the Church need not consider, and certainly should not support, any idea of a valid claim to the land by the Jews.
And as I understand it, Christian support for that, fuelled by the dubious eschatology of the 'Rapture/Left behind' theology, is a major factor in Israel being allowed to get away with things they shouldn't be.....
Christians freed of the idea that God requires them to support Israel can follow other tactics in Middle Eastern affairs.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It looks to me as though you're hedging your bets.
You seemingly can't bring yourself to say that God's promise of the (territorial) Land is obsolete under the New Covenant. It sounds to me as if you think it's merely suspended until such time as it might actually physically happen, even if not via present-day Israel.
Is it obsolete or merely bypassed, put on hold? That sounds like dispensationalism to me.
It also sounds to me as if given the opportunity, you'd buy a flat in present-day Israel on the off-chance that current events suddenly turn out to have been part of God's plan for the restoration of The Land all along.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
You can't be an heir to the promise if you have a moral obligation not to redeem it. If the Archangel Gabriel appears at the foot of my bed this evening and tells me that, as a result of my lineal descent from King Arthur, I am, in fact, the Rightwise King Of All England but that as God doesn't want me to plunge the realm into civil war and will send me to hell if I try anything; then what the Archangel Gabriel is telling me is that I am not the Rightwise King Of All England. If the Archangel's* grasp of analytical philosophy was a little bit better he would realise that where you have two propositions, one which says "I have a right [A]", and a second one which says "I do not have a right [B]" and where there are strong reasons to hold that the second proposition outweighs the first proposition, then, effectively, the two propositions can be most clearly expressed in the second proposition. i.e. "I do not have a right [B] which translates in my fictional example to my not being The Rightwise King Of All England and in the issue at hand as the Christian Church not having a territorial claim on Israel and the Occupied Territories.
What Steve appears to be postulating is a Schroedinger's Cat** theory of territorial sovereignty in which the Christian Church simultaneously possesses and does not possess a territorial claim to the land. Which doesn't really work as his thesis that the Christian Church isn't the sort of thing that can make territorial claims and enforce them by force of arms.
*To avoid "not having read Habbakuk" embarrassment in the life to come I am sure that the actual Archangel Gabriel can knock the late A. J. Ayer into a cocked hat. I am merely using him as a lay figure for rhetorical effect.
**The actual thought experiment by the Nobel Prize winning physicist and not the Shipmate.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Stop making shit up.
Is not making stuff up what a post modernist is obligated to do? The problem comes ISTM when you have to start believing it.
Unsure whether I am caught up with this thread.
I am unsure just what a dispensationalist is though I have an idea of what a dispensation is.
Regarding covenants, ISTM that if you consider the covenants God made throughout the OT, from Abraham on, they were all with the Jews.
Interestingly, this includes the Jeremiah 31 covenant which is called the 'new' covenant. This becomes interesting when you consider what Jesus said at the last supper "This is the new covenant in my blood" so arguably you could say that the church is now included in the new covenant.
This however, cannot a priori mean that the Jews are excluded now and indeed Paul creates a theology of both /and in Ephesians and in Romans 9-11.
The thesis he creates is that The covenants including the 'new' are Jewish but the church has become a partaker in them rather than a taker over of them. Jews when they come to their Messiah are restored to all their covenant privileges.
Thus we gentile Christians are spiritual children of Abraham but they remain the natural descendants who are temporarily blinded to the truth of their own Messiah but will be restored in a future kingdom age.
The bottom line ISTM is that the church has no covenant but partakes in the Jewish ones (Abrahamic and New.
Regarding the real estate, the land, I cannot see that God ever promises it to the church, only to natural Israel. Extreme Zionism seems to me to make the mistake of confusing the two. Regarding natural Israel, God still has a plan for them but that plan requires a recognition of their Messiah, Jesus. Meanwhile, a Jew who does that becomes part of the church of course but still remains a Jew. He is an inheritor of the land as it is his covenant but the Church, though a participator or partaker, derives spiritual blessings but not the real estate.
What do you think Steve Langton?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am unsure just what a dispensationalist is though I have an idea of what a dispensation is.
In a nutshell, dispensationalism was the idea, popularised by JN Darby and widely disseminated in the Schofield Bible, that God operates in different "economies" in different "dispensations" corresponding to various covenants.
It also relies on what it calls "rightly dividing the word of truth" which means splitting up the Bible - sometimes mid-verse - assigning bits to various different dispensations (it is a classic of imposing a hermeneutic on the text). It is how mid-tribulation rapture pre-millenialism became popular. The age of the Church is seen as a "parenthesis" in God's ongoing plan for the Jews, to be resumed with the restoration of Israel. On the face of it, most of your ideas sound highly dispensationalist to me.
quote:
Regarding covenants, ISTM that if you consider the covenants God made throughout the OT, from Abraham on, they were all with the Jews.
The crucial question behind all this is whether throughout history God has more than one plan of salvation.
In other words, whether when God said to the Jews of the law "the man who does these things shall live by them" he actually meant it, or whether all God's people in covenants old and new are saved by grace through faith.
The go-to book on this is Gospel & Law, contrast or continuum by Daniel Fuller, which is as comprehensive a demolition of dispensationalism as you are likely to see.
quote:
The bottom line ISTM is that the church has no covenant but partakes in the Jewish ones (Abrahamic and New.
You are arguing against the whole of Romans, in which Paul, as in Galatians, points out that God's covenant with Abraham predates both Israel and the Law and is by faith. In Romans 11 both Jew and Gentile are grafted into the tree; granted the Jews have some historic and cultural advantages - recipients of the Law, an understanding of the culture from which the Messiah came - but they are accepted on the same basis as the Gentiles and indeed all the nations.
quote:
Regarding the real estate, the land, I cannot see that God ever promises it to the church, only to natural Israel. Extreme Zionism seems to me to make the mistake of confusing the two.
Even if you believe God's promise to "natural Israel" to have a literal fulfilment, you still have to argue, beyond some not-quite-accurate-coincidences, how this is supposed to apply to a secular state which shows every sign of co-opting Old Testament scripture for its own highly secular and political ends.
(My most enduring image of this is an Israeli postage stamp featuring an IDF soldier and the verse from the Psalms, "he who guards Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps").
You also have to explain the point of this restoration to the land. Dispensationalists believe the Temple will be rebuilt and at least some of them believe the system of sacrifices will be reinstated after the "parenthesis" of the Church age.
If you reject this notion (and that of multiple paths to salvation through history) then you are left with the problem of what, ultimately, a restored territorial Israel is for.
[ 08. November 2016, 20:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No Jamat. Mind you, I'm delighted that you took the bait. The postmodernist only makes up postmodernism. Wiki: "... defined by an attitude of skepticism or distrust toward grand narratives, ideologies, and various tenets of Enlightenment rationality, including the existence of objective reality and absolute truth, as well as notions of rationality, human nature, and progress.
Instead, it asserts that knowledge and truth are the product of unique systems of social, historical, and political discourse and interpretation, and are therefore contextual and constructed.".
Suits me Sir, for the liberal arts. In dealing with all claims. In using critical thinking to dismiss fifth rate hermeneutics, bizarre irrational metanarratives and what ifs that proliferate in this thread.
You got anything left over from the historical fulfilment of Ezekiel 36 after 32 years, that despite being fulfilled then is yet to be fulfilled?
Got anything vaguely like that anywhere? Anything not fulfilled poetically, symbolically, spiritually in Christ?
Give us a story Jamat, go on. I'm disappointed that you haven't chosen better ones, ones that even I entertain. Let's see if you can discern them. Or do I have to provide them for you?
Oooh and dispensationalism: LMGTFY.
[ 08. November 2016, 21:22: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eutychus;
quote:
It sounds to me as if you think it's merely suspended until such time as it might actually physically happen, even if not via present-day Israel.
Essentially it will happen - as I've said a few times above - in the 'new heavens and new earth when everything is restored and renewed after the day of judgement. Christians - regardless of Jewish or Gentile origin - simply do not need the land in the present, and are busy instead in spreading the Kingdom of God by leading people to faith in Jesus.
Callan, part of the answer to the points you raise is that naturally I am not 'Rightwise King of Israel'; but Jesus is, and through faith I am in Him, as are other gentile Christians and also Jewish Christians. The rights 'subsist' in Him and will be enjoyed in glory way beyond any possible earthly fulfilment. In the meantime He is Lord and I do the part He allocates me - which is unlikely to involve my moving to Israel....
The important point for the current discussion is that the rights can't exist in or for Jews who reject God in Christ, and so the idea of a modern Israel as a state for ethnic Jews despite such rejection of Jesus is a deeply flawed idea; though obviously those Jews don't understand it that way.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hey Eutychus! That looks like a NO! But a thousand times redundant. Well six hundred and twenty three point five times to be precise. Sorry for the quantitative clarity of that. But how does one measure the qualitative no-ness of that? It's obviously negative but ... I'm afraid that I'm being all too transparent here!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Martin 60: Got anything vaguely like that anywhere? Anything not fulfilled poetically, symbolically, spiritually in Christ?
Give us a story Jamat, go on. I'm disappointed that you haven't chosen better ones, ones that even I entertain. Let's see if you can discern them. Or do I have to provide them for you?
Perhaps Isaiah 61:2
The acceptable year of the Lord is indeed upon us but where is the day of vengeance?
By the way, is it really necessary to post like a patronising tosser? I thought better of you.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Eutychus: In other words, whether when God said to the Jews of the law "the man who does these things shall live by them" he actually meant it, or whether all God's people in covenants old and new are saved by grace through faith
My understanding is that the Hebrews are castigated for unbelief. The law in other words was a standard of righteousness and the sacrifice system existed to temporarily cover sin but justification is and has always been by faith. Heb 3:12 The issue was an evil heart of unbelief.
quote:
You are arguing against the whole of Romans, in which Paul, as in Galatians, points out that God's covenant with Abraham predates both Israel and the Law and is by faith. In Romans 11 both Jew and Gentile are grafted into the tree; granted the Jews have some historic and cultural advantages - recipients of the Law, an understanding of the culture from which the Messiah came - but they are accepted on the same basis as the Gentiles and indeed all the nations.
I thought that is what I said. There is indeed no other basis of acceptance that Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul nevertheless distinguishes between the two. Gentile believers need not be circumcised for instance but he did circumcise Jewish ones.
quote:
Even if you believe God's promise to "natural Israel" to have a literal fulfilment, you still have to argue, beyond some not-quite-accurate-coincidences, how this is supposed to apply to a secular state which shows every sign of co-opting Old Testament scripture for its own highly secular and political ends.
I think this is explained In Ezekiel where there seems to be evidence for a regathering in unbelief. The purpose of this is to call out a remnant who will accept the Messiah. Eze 36:24-27 They are to be gathered into the land from all the nations and THERE a new heart is to be given to them.
quote:
You also have to explain the point of this restoration to the land. Dispensationalists believe the Temple will be rebuilt and at least some of them believe the system of sacrifices will be reinstated after the "parenthesis" of the Church age.
Ezekiel also posits a 'kingdom' temple. This differs in dimensions from Solomon's so is obviously a different one. Not the one that is said to be rebuilt before the end of this age. That teaching is based in Daniel's prophecy of the abomination of desolation in the holy place that Jesus spoke of in Matt 24. I do have some issues with that teaching though as I cannot figure how there could be a holy place in an OT style temple when Jesus fulfilled temple worship in his death. However, restoration to the land in unbelief is explained in the passage I cited above from Ezekiel and also in Ezekiel 20:34-37. God is gathering them to deal with them regarding their rejection of the Messiah, Jesus.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Essentially it will happen - as I've said a few times above - in the 'new heavens and new earth when everything is restored and renewed after the day of judgement.
So you think there will be nation states and geopolitics an' all in this new heavens and new earth where the saints of the Lamb are, as one of their defining features, from every tribe, tongue, and race?
Do think the population of Israel will be 144,000? quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Gentile believers need not be circumcised for instance but he did circumcise Jewish ones.
Did you miss the bit where Paul says he wishes the Judaisers went the whole way and cut it all off?
Paul's circumcision of Timothy - no others on record - was a bit of pure pragmatism as part of his evangelistic agenda, not a requirement by virtue of the Law.
FF Bruce describes Paul as being so free from the shackles of the law that he even had the freedom to choose to obey it as it suited him (I'm not sure how Timothy felt about this).
In Romans 4 Paul's whole argument is that the covenant pre-dates circumcision and is by faith, not by being Jewish.
The tree into which Jew and Gentile are grafted, according to Paul, is the one of righteousness that comes by faith, not one of being Jewish.
Oh and unofficially, Jamat (since I'm involved in the thread at this point I'm not hosting it) I'd advise you to stop calling other posters names, outside Hell, or expect adverse consequences.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
By the way, is it really necessary to post like a patronising tosser? I thought better of you.
It's hard to be patient this morning, but I will try.
Acceptable under Commandment 3.
"That was a stupid and patronising post."
Not Acceptable under Commandment 3.
"That was posted by a patronising stupid person."
Jamat
That was a Commandment 3 violation. Stop it here. Your option is to take it to Hell. Or you can take me to the Styx. Here, we criticise posts, not people.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Martin 60: Got anything vaguely like that anywhere? Anything not fulfilled poetically, symbolically, spiritually in Christ?
Give us a story Jamat, go on. I'm disappointed that you haven't chosen better ones, ones that even I entertain. Let's see if you can discern them. Or do I have to provide them for you?
Perhaps Isaiah 61:2
The acceptable year of the Lord is indeed upon us but where is the day of vengeance?
By the way, is it really necessary to post like a patronising tosser? I thought better of you.
That's nothing then. Gar nichts. Rien. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
By the way, is it really necessary to post like a patronising tosser? I thought better of you.
It's hard to be patient this morning, but I will try.
Acceptable under Commandment 3.
"That was a stupid and patronising post."
Not Acceptable under Commandment 3.
"That was posted by a patronising stupid person."
Jamat
That was a Commandment 3 violation. Stop it here. Your option is to take it to Hell. Or you can take me to the Styx. Here, we criticise posts, not people.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Fair comment. I apologise.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Thinks: With Trump in the White House, will America continue to support Israel as it has done for the last forty-something years?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he hoped to reach "new heights" in relations with Mr Trump, who he described as "a true friend of the state of Israel" (...)
Earlier hard line Jewish Home party leader and Education Minister Naftali Bennett said the notion of a Palestinian state was over after Donald Trump's win.
"Trump's victory is an opportunity for Israel to immediately retract the notion of a Palestinian state in the centre of the country, which would hurt our security and just cause," he said.
"This is the position of the president-elect... The era of a Palestinian state is over."
source
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Now that IS an interesting question. He is anti-Semitic and anti-establishment but Netanyahu is pleased.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or is he appeasing?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
