The history of Israel & Zionism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15110480
Oxymoron wrote:This lo-life would have been a great Polizine back in the day.

I have no idea what a Polizine is.

But is this guy really a lo-life for breaking Omerta?

Who else but an insider can credibly squeal?
#15110483
QatzelOk wrote:I have no idea what a Polizine is.

But is this guy really a lo-life for breaking Omerta?

Who else but an insider can credibly squeal?


A collaborator Jew who helped Nazis.
He is a low life because he is a sheltered little snow flake, trying to be "woke"(translation Loser)
Insider in what exactly?
#15110489
Israel makes perfect sense for preserving Jewish life. 30% of the world's Jews live in Israel and for multiple reasons that percentage is only going to increase going forward. The Jews of Israel are not just going to leave. Therefore the Israeli State is needed to protect their lives. These claims that Israel is genocideing the Palestinians are utterly absurd. Even in the 48 war the Jews didn't engage in genocide. Sure they used mass killings to create terror to drive out the Palestinians to ethnically cleanse large parts of Palestine, but the killings were never approaching the level to actually significantly effect the demographics.

The Israeli Jews have had overlordship over the (mostly Muslim) Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank for over half a century, as well as overlordship over the Arabs of other areas for shorter period. Now of course the citizens / subjects of Gaza and the West Bank don't have equal rights or equal opportunities to Israel's citizens. Of course they don't have anything within a million miles of equal rights and equal opportunities. Of course they suffer more civilian casualties and more destruction of property than the citizens of Israel in the low level conflicts. Of course the the subjects of Gaza and the West Bank suffer frequent perhaps daily humiliations.

But one thing the last 50 years has taught us, is that the Jews of Israel can be trusted not to try and genocide the Palestinians. On that they have really proved themselves as best they can. And post 67, the Jews of Israel have also proved that they might inflict a level of brutality and collective punishment, that we would hate to be victim to, but they can be trusted to be a lot less brutal than Gaddafi, the Assads, Saddam or the Chinese and Vietnamese Communist parties.

The reverse can not be said. If the Jews of Israel ever lift the boot from the Palestinians neck, if the Arabs ever get the same or anywhere close the same power over the Jews of Israel, it is very, very possible that the Palestinians, or a good chunk of them will wreak a terrible genocidal retribution against the Jews of Israel. Look at the hatred expressed by @skinster toward Israel. She doesn't even live in Gaza or the West Bank. She is not even an Arab. She isn't even still a Muslim. Just imagine the level of hatred felt by the actual "Palestinians" that actually live there.

This is the problem when you demonise genocide. This is the problem when you make genocide into an absolute evil, beyond compare with any other grievances of rights, liberties or opportunities. This is the problem you create for yourself if you fetishise genocide. If genocide must be stopped at all cost. If preventing genocide is our moral dictate above all else then you are compelled to support the status quo in Palestine.
Last edited by Rich on 30 Jul 2020 09:18, edited 1 time in total.
#15110508
ingliz wrote:I cited the Jeremiah 27:22 argument based on a literal form of midrash, commentative and interpretative writings that hold a place in the Jewish religious tradition second only to the Bible, because @Hindsite prefers a literal reading of the Bible (Torah).


:)

I see . Well , here is what I have found regarding this passage from the Tanakh .
We find in the Talmud (Shabbat 41a) a startling opinion regarding the nature of exile. When fourth-century scholar Rabbi Zeira wished to ascend to the Land of Israel, he needed to evade his teacher, Rabbi Yehudah. For Rabbi Yehudah taught that anyone leaving Babylonia for the Land of Israel transgresses the positive command, "They will be carried to Babylon, and there they shall stay, until the day that I remember them" (Jeremiah 27:22). (Rabbi Zeira, however, disagreed with this interpretation. He held that the prophecy only referred to vessels of the holy Temple.)

Why did Rabbi Yehudah think that moving to the Land of Israel was so improper?

Babylonia at that time was the world center of Torah study. Great academies were established in Neharde'a, Sura and Pumbeditha. Jewish life in Babylonia was centered around the holiness of Torah. This great revival of Torah learning instilled a profound recognition of the true essence of the Jewish people. As such, Babylonia was the key to the redemption of Israel and their return to their land. Only when the Jewish people fully assimilate this lesson will the exile have fulfilled its purpose, and the Jewish people will be able to return to their land.

Rabbi Yehudah felt that individuals, even if they have already prepared themselves sufficiently for the holiness of the Land of Israel, should nonetheless remain in Babylonia. Why? The object of exile is not to correct the individual, but to correct the nation. The true significance of the Jewish people living in the Land of Israel - as an entire nation bearing the banner of the Rock of Israel - must not be obscured by the return of righteous individuals to the Land.

For Rabbi Yehudah, each individual Jew is like a Temple vessel. A vessel cannot fulfill its true purpose by itself, without the overall framework of a functioning Temple. So too, an individual can only join in the renascence of Israel in their Holy Land when the entire nation has been restored in its Land, via Divine redemption.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/13243
Most Jews have always felt a strong attraction and devotion to the Land of Israel. This is traceable to the covenant made between G-d and Abraham in which the Land of Israel was promised to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12). To live on the Land became a requirement of Jewish law. “A person who dwells in the Diaspora is like one who has no G-d,” says the Talmud. In the same Talmudic tractate there is a complementary statement,: "Whoever lives outside of Israel may be regarded as one who worships Idols" (Ketubot 110a, 111b).

The great thirteenth century Spanish scholar Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides) supported the talmudic position when he affirmed that settling in Israel is a positive Torah commandment. He himself spent the last three years of his life in Palestine.

Throughout the centuries individuals, and occassionally small groups, have taken the talmudic caveat seriously and have returned to the Holy Land. Nevertheless, this activity, known as aliya, meaning "going up to Israel", did not take on great significance until 1948, after the formation of the State of Israel.

However, even as far back as talmudic times, many have opposed the concept of aliya on grounds that it interferes with the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Jeremiah said, “They [Israel, the defeated nation] shall be carried to Babylon and shall remain there [in the Diaspora] until the day I [G-d] remember them” (Jeremiah 27:22). To Rabbi Judah this meant, “Whoever goes up [returns] from Babylon [the Diaspora] to Israel transgresses the positive commandment of the Torah” (Ketubot 111a). G-d must be the instrument through which Jews will return to Israel.

Today, a considerable number of ultra-Orthodox Jews continue to accept the view of Rabbi Judah, believing, as Jeremiah implied, that only through divine intervention can the Children of Israel be returned to Israel. Typical of those who support this position are members of the Satmar Chassidic sect, which originated in Hungary. In 1953 Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum (1888-1979) became the leader of the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta community in Jerusalem, but he spent little time there. Although he visited the community every few years, he spent most of his time in his Brooklyn headquarters.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/living-in-israel-mitzvah-or-custom
It is proper to understand whence he judged this that Rav Yehuda said this because of his love of the Land of Israel that was more than the rest of the world. And even if the matter is dependent on love of the Land of Israel, behold if it occurred [that there was] another man for which Israel was so beloved in his eyes then the law would change and he [too] would bless as Rav Yehuda blessed. But this we have never heard!

It would appear that he said this because Rav Yehuda holds that anyone who ascends from Babylon to the Land of Israel violates a positive commandment, as it is written (Jeremiah 27:22) "They shall be carried to Babylon, and there shall they be, until the day etc." Even though the verse is talking about vessels, Rav Yehuda took it as an allusion. And his reason was [his] love of the Land of Israel, for it is not proper for a person to strive to ascend to the Land of Israel and to see it in its ruin and disgraced by her captors, until God will remember her and she will appear as a bride adorned with her ornaments.

Behold you see how precious the praise of the Land of Israel was in the eyes of Rav Yehuda, to the point that he forbade seeing it except in its praise and adornment. As opposed to us who don't hold like him in this [regarding going to the Land of Israel], we shouldn't rule like him [regarding the blessing.
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/111378/is-there-a-connection-between-rav-yehuda-loving-israel-and-forbidding-the-ascent
#15110511
skinster wrote:This is an oxymoron.
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist then , given your narrow subjective definition ?
Last night, at a CNN town hall, Bernie Sanders put to rest the idea that the 2020 Democratic primaries are going to be about Israel.

“I am 100% pro Israel,” he said. “Israel has every right in the world to exist, and to exist in peace and security, and not to be subjected to terrorist attacks. But the United States needs to deal not just with Israel but with the Palestinian people.” “What I believe is not radical,” Sanders admitted. “I just believe that the United States should deal with the Middle East on a level playing field basis. The goal must be to try to bring people together, and not just support one country which is now run by a right wing — dare I say, racist — government.”

“I am not anti-Israel,” Sanders elaborated. “But the fact of the matter is, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is a right wing politician who is treating the Palestinian people extremely unfairly.”
https://forward.com/opinion/423069/zionists-and-anti-zionists-dont-agree-about-what-zionism-is-can-bernie/ Not only that , but also what of this ?
As the theoreticians of Zionism were greatly influenced by their contemporary awakening of oppressed people and their aspiration for a just life (e.g. the Risorgimento – unification and birth of modern Italy), it is obvious why they turned to Marx and the socialist ideas in general for guidance. Following the socialist Zionist rhetoric as illustrated below, Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist foreign policy, expecting the new state to be socialist and undermine Britain’s influence in the Middle East. The Soviet Union became the second country to recognize Israel as a state and supported it with weaponry during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Here we’ll see the main actors of the early Zionist movement and how they were influenced by socialist ideas.

Moses Hess, a friend and colleague of Marx, was undoubtedly the first who attempted a composition of Zionism and socialism[1]. But he did not agree that economic issues and class struggle could explain the entirety of history, and saw the struggle among the races or nationalities as the main drive of history. So, living in Germany in 1861-1863, and studying Italian nationalism and the German reaction to it, he foresaw that the Germans would not tolerate any national ambitions of other groups, and that they were particularly intolerant against Jews (“Yet it seems that a final race struggle is unavoidable”). But nobody took him seriously during his lifetime (he died in 1875), not even his contemporary Jews, who were then devoted to the idea of assimilation in the German society. Only by the end of the 19th century, and when Zionism was crystallized, were his writings discovered, which Theodor Herzl lauded.

In contrast to Hess, the more orthodox Marxist Ber Borochov in his book The national question and the class struggle attempted to combine Zionism and Marxism. He thought that the reason for which the Jews were persecuted everywhere was that they were not productive. Jews were hucksters, vendors, craftsmen, writers or teachers –meaning mediators– detached from the productive activities of agriculture and industry (as Marx wrote in The Jewish Problem, “The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general”). They would be forced, therefore, hunted by the European countries, to immigrate to Palestine, so that they create a natural allocation of working Jews in the production process. Besides, he said, the squalor of the proletariat as it stems from capitalist growth, intensifies competition between Jews and non-Jewish workers, making immigration more urgent still. Borochov founded the first Zionist socialist party, Workers of Zion (Poale Zion), which looked to take on labor, class struggle between the bourgeois and the Jewish proletariat and the collective ownership of the means of production. He thought that Arabs and Jewish workers together should take part in this class struggle as soon as the Jews would return to Palestine. During the 1910s his theories were considered outdated, as impossible to act on, since the Jews who had already immigrated to Palestine were finding it difficult to establish themselves financially and thought that inter-class collaboration would be necessary, let alone that a class struggle was irrelevant...Berl Katznelson (1887-1944) worked for the unification of all the socialist labor parties, which materialized in 1930. Among his plans were a full-scale immigration, the founding of a society based on the principles of equality and freedom, the collective ownership of land and natural sources, and self-government. He adapted socialism for the Palestinian reality: no proletariat, an almost non-existent industry, capitalism in a very early form, and lack of a class struggle, since he supported the existence of only one class in the new reality of the Jewish society; the “labor class”. The working class and the Jewish state, for him, are merged. The primary duty of the movement was the creation of a defensive force and the reception of the immigrants. He, too, desired the peaceful coexistence with the Arabs –“Over the generations in which we were persecuted and exiled and slaughtered, we learned not only the pain of exile and subjugation, but also contempt for tyranny. Was that only a case of sour grapes? Are we now nurturing the dream of slaves who wish to reign?” He even emphasized the religious element of the Jewish tradition and opposed the plan to divide Palestine (he had changed his mind by the middle of the Second World War) Yitzhak Tabenkin (1888-1971) considered that Jews in communes would comprise a part of a “worldwide alliance of communist peoples” and he also opposed the division of Palestine, supporting the placement of the Jews throughout Eretz-Israel (the general region of Israel with vague geographical borders, as is mentioned in the Old Testament –“Promised Land”, “Land of Canaan”, “Holy Land”). He believed that the right of the Jews to occupy the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula was derived from the Ten Commandments. He, therefore, combined a strict religious strain in Zionism with an expansionist tendency and a dogmatic and austere socialism.
http://sapardanis.org/2017/09/20/the-first-zionists-were-socialists/ Or are you just going to resort to a " no true Scotsman " ?
#15110537
ISRAEL: A NATION IS BORN IN A DAY

In Isaiah 66:7-8, the prophet foreshadowed the re-birth of Israel, which happened “in one day.” The woman giving birth before going into labor represent Israel. This accurately describes what happened on May 14, 1948 – when the Jews declared independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for the first time in 2,900 years.

During that same day, the United States issued a statement recognizing Israel’s sovereignty. And, only hours beforehand, a United Nations mandate expired, ending British control of the land. During a 24-hour span of time, foreign control of the land of Israel had formally ceased, and Israel had declared its independence, and its independence was acknowledged by other nations. Modern Israel was literally was born in a single day.

Isaiah said the birth would take place before there would be labor pains. And that too is precisely what happened. A movement called Zionism began in the 1800s to encourage Jews worldwide to move to Israel, which at that time was called Palestine. Within hours of the declaration of independence in 1948, Israel was attacked by the surrounding countries of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

When reading Isaiah 66: 7-8, keep in mind that Israel’s status as a sovereign nation was established and reaffirmed during the course of a single day, and that it was born of a movement called Zionism, and that its declaration of independence was not the result of a war but rather the cause of one.
https://amos37.com/born-in-a-day/

God Is Gathering His People Back To Israel
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-base ... -the-west/

Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Behold, I am going to save My people from the land of the east and from the land of the west; and I will bring them back and they will live in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God in truth and righteousness.’
(Zechariah 8:7-8 NASB)

Thus says the Lord God, “When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and will manifest My holiness in them in the sight of the nations, then they will live in their land which I gave to My servant Jacob. They will live in it securely; and they will build houses, plant vineyards and live securely when I execute judgments upon all who scorn them round about them. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God.”
(Ezekiel 28:25-26 NASB)

For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
(Ezekiel 36:24-26 NASB)

Then they will know that I am the Lord their God because I made them go into exile among the nations, and then gathered them again to their own land; and I will leave none of them there any longer.
(Ezekiel 39:28 NASB)
#15110552
@Hindsite

I can quote the Bible too.

See Deuteronomy 30:3, Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 27:12, 40:9, 41:14, 43:5-6, 52:12, 54:7, 56:8, Jeremiah 16:15, 23:3, 30:10, 31:9, 33:7, Ezekiel 11:17, 20:34, 28:25, 34:13, 37:21, 36:24. Hosea 1:7, Micah 2:12, Zachariah 4:6, 8:7, Psalms 53:7, 106:47.

G-d through His emissary, the Messiah, will be the one Who redeems the Jewish people from exile and gathers them in.

But this is all rather silly as Zionism has always been a secular nationalist movement clothing itself in religiosity. At its core, early Zionism was militantly atheist.

Zionism as a national movement that rebelled against historical Judaism was mainly atheistic. Most of its leaders and activists ceased believing in redemption through the coming of the Messiah, the long-standing essence of Jewish belief, and took their fate into their own hands. The power of the human subject replaced the power of the omnipotent God.

— Shlomo Sand, Emeritus Professor of History at Tel Aviv University.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 30 Jul 2020 18:06, edited 5 times in total.
#15110560
Last night, at a CNN town hall, Bernie Sanders put to rest the idea that the 2020 Democratic primaries are going to be about Israel.

“I am 100% pro Israel,” he said. “Israel has every right in the world to exist, and to exist in peace and security, and not to be subjected to terrorist attacks. But the United States needs to deal not just with Israel but with the Palestinian people.” “What I believe is not radical,” Sanders admitted. “I just believe that the United States should deal with the Middle East on a level playing field basis. The goal must be to try to bring people together, and not just support one country which is now run by a right wing — dare I say, racist — government.”

“I am not anti-Israel,” Sanders elaborated. “But the fact of the matter is, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is a right wing politician who is treating the Palestinian people extremely unfairly.”

Everything before the "but"s is worthless.

There's no way the Zionists could allow Bernie in the White House. It was his Jewishness that made him so dangerous. It meant they couldn't control him, in the way they could with Obama or Trump. Did the Zionists / Neo Cons like Obama or Trump when they first saw them. Of course not. But they realised that they could work with them. Sanders was an absolute no-no. This is why the Democratic establishment were told in no uncertain terms that the Democratic primary had to be brought to an end. And this is why the "Black lies Matter" goons were unleashed on Klobuchar. She had to be made to understand tout quick, that this was not a request to withdraw but an order.
#15110579
Oxymoron wrote:This lo-life would have been a great Polizine back in the day.




There is a lot of these "Bad Jews" in America and Europe today. And that is only increasing. They wouldn't exist if Israel wasn't the Apartheid pariah state that destroys the lives of millions of Palestinians every day, that it insists on being.

Rich wrote:Israel makes perfect sense for preserving Jewish life. 30% of the world's Jews live in Israel and for multiple reasons that percentage is only going to increase going forward.


But the opposite is happening.

The Jews of Israel are not just going to leave. Therefore the Israeli State is needed to protect their lives.


Nobody is demanding Jews in Palestine leave, we're demanding equal rights for the natives who live there too. And Israel is not needed to protect any lives, since if that were true, 100% Jews would be living there today, and as you stated, there's only around 30% and those numbers are decreasing as time goes on.

These claims that Israel is genocideing the Palestinians are utterly absurd. Even in the 48 war the Jews didn't engage in genocide. Sure they used mass killings to create terror to drive out the Palestinians to ethnically cleanse large parts of Palestine, but the killings were never approaching the level to actually significantly effect the demographics.


What has happened to the Palestinians and the ethnic cleansing ongoing today fits under the definition of 'genocide'. That it does should be the thing that upsets you, not the language used to describe what has happened and continues to happen.

But one thing the last 50 years has taught us, is that the Jews of Israel can be trusted not to try and genocide the Palestinians.


Just because all Palestinians aren't shot dead today or yesterday, doesn't mean what is happening in Palestine isn't genocide. Your obsession with semantics is weird.

Look at the hatred expressed by @skinster toward Israel. She doesn't even live in Gaza or the West Bank. She is not even an Arab. She isn't even still a Muslim. Just imagine the level of hatred felt by the actual "Palestinians" that actually live there.


Calling out the racist and colonial crimes of Zionism is "hatred"? :lol:

You don't have to be X religion or Y ethnicity to oppose settler-colonialism and apartheid. You can see that by the fact that there are people in countries all over the world who are on the same page as me.

This is the problem when you demonise genocide. This is the problem when you make genocide into an absolute evil, beyond compare with any other grievances of rights, liberties or opportunities. This is the problem you create for yourself if you fetishise genocide. If genocide must be stopped at all cost. If preventing genocide is our moral dictate above all else then you are compelled to support the status quo in Palestine.


You seem to be obsessed with a word for some weird reason. Since you have already spoken about the crimes, the daily humiliations, the lack of equal rights and ethnic cleansing, maybe focus on those things instead of a word.

Deutschmania wrote:Is Bernie Sanders a socialist then , given your narrow subjective definition ?


:lol:

Of course not, he's a Zionist and imperialist pig.
#15110760
ingliz wrote:@Hindsite

I can quote the Bible too.

See Deuteronomy 30:3, Isaiah 11:12, Isaiah 27:12, 40:9, 41:14, 43:5-6, 52:12, 54:7, 56:8, Jeremiah 16:15, 23:3, 30:10, 31:9, 33:7, Ezekiel 11:17, 20:34, 28:25, 34:13, 37:21, 36:24. Hosea 1:7, Micah 2:12, Zachariah 4:6, 8:7, Psalms 53:7, 106:47.

Can you? It would be nice if you understood what you were quoting.

ingliz wrote: G-d through His emissary, the Messiah, will be the one Who redeems the Jewish people from exile and gathers them in.

But this is all rather silly as Zionism has always been a secular nationalist movement clothing itself in religiosity. At its core, early Zionism was militantly atheist.

Zionism as a national movement that rebelled against historical Judaism was mainly atheistic. Most of its leaders and activists ceased believing in redemption through the coming of the Messiah, the long-standing essence of Jewish belief, and took their fate into their own hands. The power of the human subject replaced the power of the omnipotent God.

— Shlomo Sand, Emeritus Professor of History at Tel Aviv University.

The Messiah, is also the one that redeems the Gentile Christians and all believers. However, you are wrong that they will all be gathered back to the land as believers. We evangelical Christians have known all along that the Jews would come back to the land as believers in Jesus the Christ. That full belief does not come about until after they are gathered back to the land and are tested and refined as by fire.

"It will come about in all the land," Declares the LORD, "That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; But the third will be left in it. And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'"
(Zechariah 13:8-9 NASB)

O people in Zion, inhabitant in Jerusalem, you will weep no longer. He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry; when He hears it, He will answer you. Although the Lord has given you bread of privation and water of oppression, He, your Teacher will no longer hide Himself, but your eyes will behold your Teacher.
(Isaiah 30:19-20 NASB)
#15110787
@Hindsite

Complete bollocks!

A Christian interpretation of the verses is meaningless in this context.

You are a supersessionist, which is little better than being an anti-Semite. Jesus is not Messiah to the Jews. Christians may have fellowship with Israel’s God through the Calvary covenant, but the covenant between G-d and the Chosen was made at Mt. Sinai.


:lol:
#15110856
ingliz wrote:@Hindsite

Complete bollocks!

A Christian interpretation of the verses is meaningless in this context.

You are a supersessionist, which is little better than being an anti-Semite.

No, I am not a supersessionist or an anti-Semite. However, I am anti-Muslim. :lol:

ingliz wrote:Jesus is not Messiah to the Jews. Christians may have fellowship with Israel’s God through the Calvary covenant, but the covenant between G-d and the Chosen was made at Mt. Sinai.

It is true that the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, according to our Christian New Testament or New Covenant. This allowed Gentiles, like me, to be saved under the New Covenant made by Yahshua, the Son of God. However, I do not believe HE is through with His people the Jews according to the theory of replacement theology. That is why they are being brought back to the Land of Israel so they will eventually come to the knowledge of the truth and accept the Lord as their God.
HalleluYah

For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
(Matthew 23:39 KJV)
#15110892
Hindsite wrote:according to the theory of ...

Replacement theology is supersessionism, and, based on a literal reading of the scriptures, a heresy.

G-d’s commitment to the Jewish people is unconditional and irrevocable (Leviticus 26: 44). It will last as long as the sun, moon, and stars (Jeremiah 31: 35-37).
#15110970
Rich wrote:This is the problem when you demonise genocide.

Are you saying that genocide "doesn't deserve to be demonized?"

Are you saying that maybe the world should give genocide a chance? That it can be used to "improve" or "progress?"

I am asking you this because "celebrating genocide" - like you seem to be asking the reader to do - is much worse than Holocaust Denial. It's Holocaust Celebration, that you are suggesting.
#15110974
Hindsite wrote:No, I am not a supersessionist or an anti-Semite. However, I am anti-Muslim. :lol:


It is true that the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, according to our Christian New Testament or New Covenant. This allowed Gentiles, like me, to be saved under the New Covenant made by Yahshua, the Son of God. However, I do not believe HE is through with His people the Jews according to the theory of replacement theology. That is why they are being brought back to the Land of Israel so they will eventually come to the knowledge of the truth and accept the Lord as their God.
HalleluYah

For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
(Matthew 23:39 KJV)

There is no need to be anti-Muslim any more than there is reason to be anti-Jewish . And the funny thing is that , unlike the Jews , whom do not accept Jesus as being the Messiah , Muslims do , they just don't view him as being the divine Son of God , the way that Christians do . https://www.christiancentury.org/article/interview/who-jesus-muslims Lastly , in response to the Bible versus you cited , I will cite these . Numbers 23:19 , Psalm 146:3 , Zechariah 8:23 , Jeremiah 16:19
#15111020
ingliz wrote:Replacement theology is supersessionism, and, based on a literal reading of the scriptures, a heresy.

Yes, I know. However, you are the one that accused me of being a supersessionist. I told you that I do not believe that, so stop lying.

ingliz wrote:G-d’s commitment to the Jewish people is unconditional and irrevocable (Leviticus 26: 44). It will last as long as the sun, moon, and stars (Jeremiah 31: 35-37).

So? I did not say I disagreed with that. I just believe that what is happening in Israel and especially Jerusalem in our time is part of that divine providence and Yahshua is to be the Messiah of both Christians and Jews.

Deutschmania wrote:There is no need to be anti-Muslim any more than there is reason to be anti-Jewish . And the funny thing is that , unlike the Jews , whom do not accept Jesus as being the Messiah , Muslims do , they just don't view him as being the divine Son of God , the way that Christians do .

The Muslims accept Jesus (Yahshua) only as being a prophet inferior to Muhammad, the founder of Islam. The Allah that the Muslims worship is actually Satan the devil.
#15111048
Hindsite wrote:you are the one that accused me of being a supersessionist

So, are you saying you are a dispensationalist - Faith is pitted against obedience, nullifying the moral aspect of believing. Grace becomes the antithesis of law, providing the basis for a system that is inherently antinomian?

A heresy so pernicious that the Church condemned all who taught it ...

Canon 19: If anyone shall say that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or that the Ten Commandments in no wise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

Canon 20: If anyone shall say that a man who is justified and how perfect soever is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe; as if forsooth, the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema.

Canon 21: If anyone shall say that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men as a Redeemer in whom they should trust, and not also as a legislator whom they should obey; let him be an anathema.

Canon 27: If anyone shall say that there is no deadly sin but that of infidelity; or that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save only by that infidelity; let him be anathema.


— Decree on Justification, Sixth session of the Ecumenical Council at Trent, 13 January, 1547
Last edited by ingliz on 02 Aug 2020 21:05, edited 1 time in total.
#15111074
ingliz wrote:So, are you saying you are a Dispensationalist - Faith is pitted against obedience, nullifying the moral aspect of believing. Grace becomes the antithesis of law, providing the basis for a system that is inherently antinomian?

A heresy so pernicious that the Church condemned all who taught it ...

Canon 19: If anyone shall say that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or that the Ten Commandments in no wise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

Canon 20: If anyone shall say that a man who is justified and how perfect soever is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe; as if forsooth, the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema.

Canon 21: If anyone shall say that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men as a Redeemer in whom they should trust, and not also as a legislator whom they should obey; let him be an anathema.

Canon 27: If anyone shall say that there is no deadly sin but that of infidelity; or that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save only by that infidelity; let him be anathema.


— Decree on Justification, Sixth session of the Ecumenical Council at Trent, 13 January, 1547

This edict leaves no room for an independent interpretation of religious texts. It is a device (gadget) that guarantees priests and other religious salesmen total control of the narrative.

Kind of like the way mass media uses its texts to shame anyone who doesn't own the right products- the ones that are heavily advertised or routinely normalized in commercial media for the benefit of the oligarchs.
#15111092
QatzelOk wrote:This edict leaves no room for an independent interpretation of religious texts.

That's as maybe but by any literal reading of the texts, and @Hindsite prefers not to allegorize, we can only conclude that dispensational premillennialism must be rejected as it's a system of biblical interpretation which is not in harmony with Scripture.


:)

All cultures are class conscious. People are als[…]

Attack in Lebanon

The news coming out of Lebanon is horrible. Close[…]

The reason why he and others got it so wrong is p[…]

So much wrong with this.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/04/acrobat-sam-panda-bu[…]