"I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you"

reply to post by NOTurTypical

. . . the Bible speaks of her future redemption.

Those who follow God's leading do what is God's will, to believe in His son, Jesus, and all those who do so are 'saved'.
The concept of an 'Israel' is vindicated in the establishment of a universal, worldwide church that Paul only saw the very beginnings of, but had faith that it was progressing and would draw all men, eventually into its fold, all those who have been chosen for salvation, so a virtual 'Israel', or what he would have termed, a spiritual Israel.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

You couldn't be further from the truth...There are over 30,000 verses in the Bible and there are a great many of those that tell us the Jews ARE God's chosen people and the land is given to the Jews ONLY......You picked 3 to attempt to comment on...

reply to post by Iscool

You couldn't be further from the truth...There are over 30,000 verses in the Bible and there are a great many of those that tell us the Jews ARE God's chosen people and the land is given to the Jews ONLY......You picked 3 to attempt to comment on...

I don't dispute that the land was given to the Jews, but they could only stay on the land was as tenants.... and plus the whole deal was conditional.

The Jews had to OBEY God or face punishments and exile. They blew it by killing prophets and rejecting Jesus.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Deetermined

 

I'd we willing to support an Israeli/Jewish state with or without religion/blessings/curses if it meant keeping the Muslim extremists in check.

In other words, you are willing to support an anti-Christian state that rejects Jesus and calls his mother a w****.

Absolutely...What civilized human being could support another muzlim country??? Besides, look around you...Look at those countries that have blessed Israel...That have freedom of religion...Compare those with those countries that will kill you if you are not a muzlim...

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by logical7

 

The arrogance that comes with thinking themselves as chosen people and which is now even fueled by zionist christians who almost look up to israel with dreamy adoring eyes is the cause of injustice. The chosen status came with a covenant. Break the covenant forget the status.

Absolutely.
Israel has been guilty of breaking the covenant over and over again. The Bible itself accuses the Jews/Israel of killing their own prophets. Israel has been warned of doom and destruction, more than any other nation.... and yet, Christian Zionists believe Israel is to prevail?? Absurd.

You decided to believe that portion of the Bible...But you chose not to believe the rest of it, eh???

reply to post by Iscool

Look at those countries that have blessed Israel...That have freedom of religion...

Take America for instance. Freedom of religion? Sure. But they also have the freedom to insult Jesus and mock God. Is this what you want?

It appears that Christians would rather support a state that insults Jesus on national TV.

reply to post by Iscool

...There are over 30,000 verses in the Bible and there are a great many of those that tell us the Jews ARE God's chosen people and the land is given to the Jews ONLY......

Do a Bible word search with the term "God's chosen people" and you will find the only matches are in the New Testament, talking about those who believe in Jesus, in other words, Christians.
There is nowhere in the Bible that says the land is given to "the Jews only".

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . the Bible speaks of her future redemption.

Those who follow God's leading do what is God's will, to believe in His son, Jesus, and all those who do so are 'saved'.
The concept of an 'Israel' is vindicated in the establishment of a universal, worldwide church that Paul only saw the very beginnings of, but had faith that it was progressing and would draw all men, eventually into its fold, all those who have been chosen for salvation, so a virtual 'Israel', or what he would have termed, a spiritual Israel.

edit on 8-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Did Gabriel not tell Mary that her Son would rule from David's throne?

And you seemed to have missed Paul's analogy about the natural and unnatural branches.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Did Gabriel not tell Mary that her Son would rule from David's throne?

And so he does.
What you are doing in your cult doctrines is forcing God to fulfill that prediction in a way that is satisfactory to you, or rather the persons who invented the cult 200 years ago as part of the greater scheme of zionist to make a land grab in Palestine.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Take America for instance. Freedom of religion? Sure. But they also have the freedom to insult Jesus and mock God. Is this what you want?

It's better that people have freedom of religion and can pick what they believe.
Even if it means that some will chose to insult God.
God can handle it. And any insults those people do towards God is on THEM.

I'd rather have freedom of religion in which people can pick how they wish to believe .. rather than have a bunch of muslims or whoever shoving their silly beliefs down my throat.

Freedom is always better.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Did Gabriel not tell Mary that her Son would rule from David's throne?

And so he does.
What you are doing in your cult doctrines is forcing God to fulfill that prediction in a way that is satisfactory to you, or rather the persons who invented the cult 200 years ago as part of the greater scheme of zionist to make a land grab in Palestine.

He isn't sitting on David's throne, He's sitting on His Father's throne.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Isaac was the son of promise, Ishmael was not.

Genesis 17:18-21 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
As for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set in the next year.

Genesis 22:1-2 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold here I am.
And he said take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The area being called Pallistine has not always been called Pallistine.
Before the Jews entered there it was call the Land of Canan after the last exile, the Romans started calling it Pallistina from Phillistines (traditional enemies of the Jews.)

So called Pallistinians are nothing more than refugees from countries that have rejected them. The land they occupy is not theirs, by any right. They have no conenant for it, they have no deed for it, they have no heritage with it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

. . . the Bible speaks of her future redemption.

Those who follow God's leading do what is God's will, to believe in His son, Jesus, and all those who do so are 'saved'.
The concept of an 'Israel' is vindicated in the establishment of a universal, worldwide church that Paul only saw the very beginnings of, but had faith that it was progressing and would draw all men, eventually into its fold, all those who have been chosen for salvation, so a virtual 'Israel', or what he would have termed, a spiritual Israel.

edit on 8-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

A univeral church in the sense you are saying is not Biblical. The true Church is the Body of Christ. This includes all believers in Jesus as their Redeemer.

There is nothing in the writings of Paul that would indicate that a world-wide church would eventually draw in all men. Quite the contrary: 2 Thessalonians 9-12 Evebn him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivablenees of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Paul clearly knew there would be unbelievers until the return of Jesus.

I don't think the word "virtual" adequately describes the concept you are trying to make about a spiritual Israel.
In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile; we are all of His Vine. Through Christ we become the seed of Abraham (not the seed of Israel.)

reply to post by 1PLA1

. . . Quite the contrary: 2 Thessalonians . . .

I don't think that Paul wrote 2 Thess.
It's a later writing describing a situation that didn't develop until after Paul's death or otherwise disappearing from history.
That's all that "man of sin" that the real Paul never talked about.
The real Paul said that the 'god of this world' was fading away.
What you are going by is a forgery, meaning someone wrote a letter and made it look as if Paul wrote it, in order to have it accepted.

reply to post by 1PLA1

The area being called Pallistine has not always been called Pallistine.

The country of Palestine has been called that since the time of Emperor Hadrian.

Before the Jews entered there it was call the Land of Canan after the last exile, the Romans started calling it Pallistina from Phillistines (traditional enemies of the Jews.)

"The Jews" didn't 'enter' Palestine until the Persian Empire, after the fall of Babylon. There were Hebrews that lived in the land of Canaan, who were indistinguishable from other Canaanites, other than that they were more likely to travel outside of Canaan in order to do trade .
After the Second Jewish War against the Romans, Jews were not allowed to live in Palestine. Regardless of what the derivation of the name, it was called that, and if you want to throw in the Philistines, so what if they were the 'enemies' of the ancient inhabitants of the hill-country tribal lands, they were the rulers of the lowlands and coastal plain, that matters, as far as holding the trade routes and political centers that interacted internationally.

So called Pallistinians are nothing more than refugees from countries that have rejected them.

That is just you buying into Zionist myths to slander the Palestinians. Where this comes from is the other Arab countries do not want to see the zionist regime get away with their attempted ethnic cleansing, so reject as much as they can, accepting them as refugees, so that they will be left in place in order to slow the ruthless genocide that the so-called Jewish state is perpetrating.

The land they occupy is not theirs, by any right. They have no conenant for it, they have no deed for it, they have no heritage with it.

They occupy their land by every normal right conceivable.
The so-called Israeli regime has a made-up right, that is not recognized by international law, which is that their god gave it to them, even though the people who took the land from the Palestinians were Ashkenazi Jews, which means European Jews originally from the Caucasus region, so were not even descended from the Hebrews, but were converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

He isn't sitting on David's throne, He's sitting on His Father's throne.

Your cult, in order to promote the zionist goals, willfully fail to understand the point being made by the author of Acts in his telling of the speech by Peter on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2, starting in verse 25,
For David says about him,
(he talks about not being allowed to see decay)
David, that he both died and was buried,
(he is saying obviously David was talking about someone else)
he was a prophet
(David was seeing something that was going to happen in the future some time)
God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne,
(David was talking about Jesus, and his resurrection)
exalted to the right hand of God,
(which has a symbolic significance, but does not mean Jesus is exclusively or literally sitting on God's throne)
Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.
(The Christ is who sits on David's throne, The Lord, meaning the one who rules)
You cult members walk around with blinkers on so you never see Jesus, and get sold a bill of goods that Jesus doesn't really do anything like stand on a throne until the world is basically over.

Luke 1:32, which is the angelic proclamation you are talking about, says, "God will give him the throne of his father David."
That is pretty broad, and your cult seems to interpret it to mean something in a very particular way, part of what makes it a cult, that somehow the cult has the power of prophecy higher than Gabriel's.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 1PLA1

 

. . . Quite the contrary: 2 Thessalonians . . .

I don't think that Paul wrote 2 Thess.
It's a later writing describing a situation that didn't develop until after Paul's death or otherwise disappearing from history.
That's all that "man of sin" that the real Paul never talked about.
The real Paul said that the 'god of this world' was fading away.
What you are going by is a forgery, meaning someone wrote a letter and made it look as if Paul wrote it, in order to have it accepted.

edit on 9-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Your opinion, friend.

We can discuss this all day but it really comes down to opinion so there is no point is discussing it.

reply to post by 1PLA1

Your opinion, friend.

Yes, and I have some good company with that opinion.
You can kind of split the opinions on that among biblical scholars along party lines, with the Dispensationalists going with 2 Thess. because it is fundamental to their doctrine.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

1. The myth of Jewish chosenness.
Some of the myths perpetrated by the Christian Zionist movement is that the Jews/Israel alone are the rightful inheritors of not only the holy land, but also the blessings God gave to Abraham. These myths all revolve around the concept of Jewish chosenness and so, naturally fit in with the pro-Jewish interpretation of Bible prophecy as held by Christian Zionists.

Israel will exist wether or not there are jews in it and this is for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The Israelites were chosen to be the priests of nations, and nations translates as "gentiles". They were the chosen because they are the ones God chose to offer up the sacrifice for the sins of the world, i.e. Yeshua ha'Moshiach (Jesus the Christ). He did not chose any other people, and only Israelites were present at Mt. Sinai when he made them the priests of the nations and they paid a heavy price for offering up the sacifice for the sins of the world. Jesus blinded them to what they were doing, for if they had known they were hanging on a tree their own Master, they never would have done it.

Hebrews are not born, they are made for Abraham was not born a hebrew, but a Chaldean. The word "hebrew" means "those who cross over into a foreign land" which is allegorical in meaning that they have crossed over into a new spiritual beginning, and out of "Babylon".