So if you’re pro Israel (not their govt), and quote the Old Testament, you’re spewing idolatry? Now that’s a stretch. Sir, please share your version of the Gospel. I’m assuming you’re a God hating Jesus denying atheist.
🌎 Israel vs. Iran, and where will the US fit in?
- Thread starter Brandon Van de Graaff
- Start date
Well, I'm glad that calmed down a bit...
It's not just the old testament, Romans 11 covers this subject.
One of my favorite photos. You always wonder the back story to disaster girl. Wikipedia stands ready...
Disaster Girl - Wikipedia
musso
Member
Nice try, Cathy Newman.
My version is irrelevant. What’s relevant to this discussion is whether or not the Gospel and NT support political Zionism and Israel’s aggression and expansion. My point is that the text of the NT, and the whole concept of a new covenant, repudiates (1) the racist and tribal favoritism of the OT, and (2) the notion that divine favor can be summoned by birthright or by pious adherence to Torah or any other legalistic ideology. Instead, the scope of the Gospel is universal, international, and cosmopolitan. One’s race, sex, class, home country, etc., are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous for spiritual salvation. “For God so loved the
To @Krimson ’s point, yes, you can certainly find excerpts here and there of a delicate handling of Jewish affairs, Romans 11 being such an example. I had to reread it again before replying, and I was reminded how convoluted it is. I mean seriously, it’s difficult to take away anything concrete because Paul back pedals as much as he asserts. To me it reads like Paul is trying to assuage Jewish members at a time when keeping all young churches intact and unified is critical. We know the necessity of Torah observance was a point of contention. Jewish followers of Jesus probably resented or felt marginalized by the influx of Gentile membership and Greco-Roman (ie pagan) influence over the new religion.
You assume wrong. Because I’m an atheist, I don’t hate god or Jesus.
Last edited:
I can understand some of what you're feeling here but to me Romans 11 isn't an excerpt, it's a chapter on exactly what you're talking about. Paul uses the analogy of an olive tree and Judaism is the root of our faith in God. He also speaks on how they didn't accept the new covenant and how their branches were trimmed from the tree and gentiles were grafted on as we did accept the new covenant. He also tells us not to be haughty because Jews are still God's chosen people and the promises God made in the Old Testament are irrevocable and will come to fruition.Nice try, Cathy Newman.
My version is irrelevant. What’s relevant to this discussion is whether or not the Gospel and NT support political Zionism and Israel’s aggression and expansion. My point is that the text of the NT, and the whole concept of a new covenant, repudiates (1) the racist and tribal favoritism of the OT, and (2) the notion that divine favor can be summoned by birthright or by pious adherence to Torah or any other legalistic ideology. Instead, the scope of the Gospel is universal, international, and cosmopolitan. One’s race, sex, class, home country, etc., are neither advantages nor disadvantages to spiritual salvation. “For God so loved theJewsworld…”
To @Krimson ’s point, yes, you can certainly find excerpts here and there of a delicate handling of Jewish affairs, Romans 11 being such an example. I had to reread it again before replying, and I was reminded how convoluted it is. I mean seriously, it’s difficult to take away anything concrete because Paul back pedals as much as he asserts. To me it reads like Paul is trying to assuage Jewish members at a time when keeping all young churches intact and unified is critical. We know the necessity of Torah observance was a point of contention. Jewish followers of Jesus probably resented or felt marginalized by the influx of Gentile membership and Greco-Roman (ie pagan) influence over the new religion.
You assume wrong. Because I’m an atheist, I don’t hate god or Jesus.
What i get from that chapter is that someJews chose a sentimental way of laws and religion and refused to accept Jesus because that would change much of how they'd worshipped for forever. They sinned by not trusting God and they've paid for it but the promises still remain and will be fulfilled and we, as Christians, should support them and recognize the history of their persecution and sacrifices for God because they are His chosen people and they paved the way for us.
Some of Paul's writings were difficult for me to understand but asking God for help in understanding and actually studying the Bible have helped me, maybe it would help you as well.
musso
Member
Yes, ONE chapter out of 260ish chapters in the New Testament. So relatively speaking, it IS an excerpt, considering the overwhelming majority of the New Testament which strongly advocates for replacement theology/supersessionism. You can close your eyes and flip to almost anywhere in the NT and land on a passage that either directly or indirectly points to Jesus as THE Way, faith over works, the first shall be last (and vice versa), and so on. For most of the history of Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodox and early Protestantism all preached supersessionism. It wasn't until the fraudster/criminal Scofield and his cohorts in the late 19th century that dispensationalism was invented along with Christian Zionism and Jewish exceptionalism.
Conveniently this was the same time that Britain began eyeing Palestine and the modern Zionist movement began. Rothschild and other Jews began identifying "philanthropic" opportunities to move Jews there as a new Western colony in a critical geostrategic zone: the nexus of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Plus Germany and Russia was challenging UK primacy in the area by making inroads through the Balkans to the coveted Middle East as oil began to replace coal. So the new Evangelical movements in Britain and America, along with their Christian Zionist obsession, dovetailed nicely with Anglo-American foreign policy priorities leading up to WW1: break up and "balkanize" all the axial powers (e.g. the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires) to protect UK, French, and later US access to precious oil, pipelines, and trade routes. Ever since WW1, the objective of the West, as the dominant maritime power (and later air power), has been to keep strategic land powers balkanized and fractious with their neighbors, lest they unify and resist intervention by outside and remote powers.
This quick summary brings us back to why we're discussing this in a thread about Israel vs Iran. Israel, or you might say the West via Israel, or you might say Israel via the West (it's hard to know who is doing the wagging), has relied on this theological innovation to keep a critical number of Westerners supportive or at least tolerant of what would otherwise be an unpopular war in remote lands with nothing but increased debt, taxes, and security threats offered in return to Western taxpayers. So much for blessing those who bless Israel. Endless wars continue to destroy our way of life, our institutions, the nuclear family, the birth rates, etc. Let me know when we can expect to receive our blessings for being the largest benefactor to Israel in history. I'm guessing we'll be waiting for as long as we've been waiting for the messiah to return.
Last edited:
musso
Member
It has helped me. Thanks.
I guess we just see things differently. You're right that the majority of the New Testament is centered on Jesus, as it should be. He is the only way and that is the message He brought and was carried to the Jews and the early church, some accepted and some rejected. Paul told Christians how to handle Israel and Jews who didn't convert in Romans and, I assume, felt that the one chapter was all that subject needed.
You could say what you said about most wars. We've been blessed to only have our homeland attacked only during WW2 by enemy soldiers. I don't see terrorist attacks and military attacks as the same, just my opinion. Some believe we should only be involved in wars where we're attacked, some feel we should be more preemptive and get involved before our shores are attacked, and some are pure warmongers. I'm in the middle but still don't agree with every war we enter. I also don't believe war has been the main cause of the destruction of the nuclear family or our way of life. Look at the number of men from the Greatest generation who bailed on their families or chose to be part of the alphabet group vs men today. Sin has destroyed the nuclear family because people accept it as normal these days.
Personally I feel our country is far from perfect and has been blessed beyond measure by God as have I. You can't expect blessings after blessings though when sin is rampant and we grow further and further away from a Christian nation. I'm not waiting for Jesus to return, I know it's going to happen when God wants it to so I've just made sure I'm prepared and, if it happens during my life, my family and I are going with Him.
You said you're an atheist, how would you expect any blessing as everything should just be luck or self induced gain/loss? I don't say that sarcastically it's a genuine question. I think we find what we look for. We can look for the bad and always find it or we can look for the blessings and find plenty of those as well and we can choose to see both as luck of the draw if we want.
musso
Member
Just know this, your viewpoint (dual-covenant theology) didn’t emerge until the 1800’s, when The Great Game between the UK and Russia was happening (Crimea was one of the contested areas at the time - what’s old is new again!). It’s hard to do a deep dive on Scofield and not see how much of a swindler he was. But your understanding of a two-tiered salvation system, one for Jews and another for Goyim, conveniently gave Western imperialists a sympathetic base of domestic support for imperialism in the Middle East, so long as it was marketed as servicing God’s chosen people in some manner. (Similar tactics were used to gain domestic support for colonizing foreign islands like Hawaii and the Philippines when politicians openly advocated for “Christianizing” indigenous “savages.” Before that, Catholic and Protestant European powers gave similar excuses for their conquests in the Americas, Africa, and elsewhere.)
Returning to the 1800’s, militarists, industrialists, financiers and their puppet politicians believed less in theology and more in the proposition that whoever presided over the extraction of Middle Eastern oil would have a jump start in controlling the fate of the world. Oil was considered that important. So the World Zionist Organization partnered with the blossoming Evangelical/revival movement to promote Western policies to send money, arms, and immigrants of spurious Semitic ancestory to Palestine to secure a beachhead on the Eastern Mediterranean. The West already knew how vital control of the nearby Suez Canal was to preserving its Asian colonies and interests. To allow another imperial power to ride the coattails of Christendom’s connection to the Promised Land by militarily moving into the region would threaten control of the Suez and Western hegemony at large. So you have evil people like the Rothschild family helped to make Zionism happen. See the Balfour Declaration.
It most certainly has. Wars destroy everything, the conqueror and the conquered alike. It exhausts resources of all sorts and kinds: food, materials, money, and perhaps most importantly, the scarce supply of brave and strong men upon which every prosperous society relies. History clearly demonstrates this, and economics can predict it. War feeds all the critical resources of civilization into a massive wood chipper faster than those resources can be replenished naturally in peacetime. This is why every dying civilization is preceded by massive government expenditure (ie consumption of wealth). And nothing consumes wealth faster and redistributes it into fewer hands more than war. Smart people have known this throughout history, from Aristotle to our Founders. (This is why my forum avatar and signature are what they are.)
Funny how we can call absentee, derelict and unfaithful husbands and fathers “sinful” and understand it as a cause of cultural decline, yet it’s somehow noble and a net benefit to society when men readily and dutifully abandon their family in slavish submission to corrupt politicians to sacrifice their lives in overseas wars to protect the assets of Rockefeller and the investments of JP Morgan.
So in a literal sense, fatalities kill husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, etc., hence damaging the families to which they belonged. Even if they return alive, they return a lesser person emotionally, physically, or both. Even if war doesn’t take a soldier’s life, it will definitely take something else. The rate of suicide, illness, and homelessness among veterans attest to this. Plus the lost time with your family and community can never be returned to you. People move on without you.
In an economic sense, the inflation and financial bubbles/bursts resulting from federal spending raises living costs, thereby destroying single income families. Inflation also consumes the wealth parents leave behind for their posterity to preserve a proud lineage. Over time this causes adults to delay parenthood, which inevitably reduces the number of children, which then diminishes the passing of cultural values from one generation to the next. Two-income households produce increased stress on spouses as domestic responsibilities and chores go undone, highlighting the priceless value of a queen who can focus her energy managing domestic affairs while the husband specializes in moving up in the professional arena. The lack of division of labor in the home results in a higher divorce rate as spousal needs and purpose go unmet and financial security evaporate via inflation.
Sociologically, two-income families force children into the custody of state schooling and state indoctrination, severing family bonds and replacing loyalty to family, clan, and community with loyalty to federal authorities and the ideals fed to them. You should see the quotes of Lenin on state schooling. Or Prussian leaders, or Horace Mann, or Rockefeller’s Board of Education. Perhaps no policy has destroyed human civilization more throughout history than state schooling.
Last edited:
musso
Member
Imagine convincing men it’s more virtuous to leave behind their wives, children, homestead, aging parents, siblings, extended family members, neighbors, church, and local community to fight a war on foreign soil to enrich elites and speculators … without first conditioning them in their most formative early years with this…
#idolatry
Last edited:
24and7
Member
The Bellamy saluteImagine convincing men it’s more virtuous to leave behind their wives, children, homestead, aging parents, siblings, extended family members, neighbors, church, and local community to fight a war on foreign soil to enrich elites and speculators … without first conditioning them in their most formative early years with this…
#idolatry
You don't know my viewpoint if you think it originated in the 1800's. My viewpoint originated when I found God and it is founded in documents written a couple thousand years ago. I'm not trying to convince you to see things the way I do, that's between each individual and their Creator, just telling you how I see it.
I served my country for 24 years so please don't tell me what I and others have sacrificed unless you've made those sacrifices as well. We live in the Greatest country in the world because people have sacrificed for our freedom and I'm proud to have played a small part in that.
I hope you find God but I'm not going to try to shove religion down your throat. I don't believe continuing this conversation is going to change either of our stances on religion but if you have anything religious that you'd like to discuss please message me and I'll answer to the best of my ability.
Have a nice night.
musso
Member
You may not be aware or fluent in the supersessionism vs dual-covenant theological conflict. That’s fine. But that doesn’t change history or how Christian theology evolved over these 2,000 years. You’re focusing on .01% of NT passages to arrive at a racist soteriology. And the reason this view didn’t catch on until the last century is because … it isn’t supported in 99.9% of the NT which clearly and emphatically points to Jesus as the ONLY way to salvation and that race, sex, vocation, wealth, and status no longer matter in salvation. And it’s no coincidence that dual-covenant theology emerged at the same time as the modern Zionist movement. It’s also no coincidence that Bibi and Likud relies on mega-church leaders like Hagee, networks like CBN and TBN to distract a significant number of US taxpayers from recognizing the flawed foundation of Zionist ethno-supremacism and Israel’s stranglehold over US foreign policy and free speech laws in America, of which the TikTok ban is the latest example.
You have certainly served your government, but that doesn’t automatically guarantee you’ve served your country. By that logic, anyone who has served in the public sector has benefited their fellow countrymen. And we know that is easily wrong. It’s just customary that we avoid critical evaluation of the performance, function, and results of government employees in the most dangerous environments, like military, police, first responders, etc. But there’s no reason to assume that the hazards of a government job assures that employee of benefiting their fellow countryman. Consider this soldier’s realization:
My personal lack of military service neither prevents my knowledge of others nor my right to share such knowledge. However you are welcome to identify any claim I’ve made with which you disagree and provide a rebuttal.
Read it on Gateway Pundit.
24and7
Member
musso
Member
Can you explain? I don’t understand what you mean by the meme.
-
Thread 'A phone photo thread...'
...trying something new, a sort of spinoff of the Pictures of the Day thread- Brandon Van de Graaff
- Replies: 555
Similar threads
- College Football News :
- Our Fansights
- 0
- 706