Posted on 08/17/2009 7:29:57 AM PDT by Ranald S. MacKenzie
A prominent American Jewish leader recently told me that the passionate standing ovation he received after addressing 4,000 participants at John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel rally in Washington was reminiscent of the fervent Zionist gatherings he attended as a youngster. The two-day Evangelical Christian parley was designed to express support for Israel, receive updates on the current challenges facing the Jewish state and lobby congressmen in support of Israel. They heard addresses from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu via satellite, Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ambassador Michael Oren, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Presidents’ Conference and others.
At a time when much of global public opinion views Israel through the distorted lenses of Arab and anti-Semitic defamation, millions of Evangelicals have emerged as our most devoted supporters.
The evolution of this relationship is extraordinary and defies logic. It is only over the past three decades that support for Israel assumed such a high priority among this Christian denomination, which is rapidly expanding at a time when other churches are in dramatic decline.
Until recently, most Jews regarded Evangelicals as zealots obsessed with a desire to convert everyone. They also believed that their philo-Semitism was not “genuine” because it was based on an eschatology which predicted that the second coming of the messiah would only come after the Jewish people had returned to Israel and brought about the end of days.
In addition, the strongly liberal American Jewish community, obsessed with separation of church and state, gay rights and abortion, regarded Evangelicals as dangerous right-wing extremists and until recently were complaining that politicians like Netanyahu, who addressed their gatherings, embarrassed them.
YET DESPITE this hostility, the Evangelicals continued to upgrade support for Israel, to the point where it is now a central feature of their world outlook.
As though divine providence had intervened, the change took place precisely when liberals, the traditional supporters of the Jews, embraced postmodernism and began turning against Israel, which was no longer an underdog. Alas, today, many liberals engage in campaigns demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish state.
Evangelical support for Israel is not matched by other Christian denominations. Many Protestant churches have in fact transformed their antipathy toward Israel into hatred. The Catholic Church made enormous progress identifying the evil of anti-Semitism, but due to a combination of realpolitik and an unwillingness to swallow the bitter theological pill of recognizing Jewish statehood, it is still far from evenhanded in relation to the Arab-Israel conflict.
The truth is that Evangelicals are no more monolithic than Jews. They do include fringe groups who are fanatics, believers in the apocalyptic end of the Jewish people, missionaries and even anti-Semites. But the vast majority are God-fearing people who pray for the welfare of Israel and share an unconditional love for Jews as God’s chosen people.
The principal reason for Evangelical support is that unlike other Christian groups, they reject replacement theology, which teaches that God forsook the Jews for having rejected Jesus. They respect Judaism as the foundation of Christianity and believe that the Jews will always remain God’s chosen people. They believe that the Jewish claim to Israel is based on the biblical promise from God. That may embarrass secular Jews, but for traditional Jews it remains the core of their relationship with the Holy Land.
Evangelicals also believe that when God told Abraham that those who bless the “Children of Israel” will also be blessed (Genesis 12:3) this meant that God would bless Christians who love the Jewish people and support the State of Israel. They also believe that the ingathering of the Jews will precede the return of the messiah, and quote Isaiah 60:14 saying: “The sons of your oppressors will come bowing before you” as a prophecy that righteous gentiles can partake in this process.
These feelings nurtured the early 19th century Christian Zionists and subsequently motivated people like Lord Balfour, who authored the Balfour Declaration; Orde Wingate, who helped create the Hagana; Rev John Stanley Grauel, the hero on board the Exodus, who disclosed what happened in a firsthand report which had a crucial impact on the UN Special Committee on Palestine; writers like Pierre van Paassen, who promoted the Zionist cause; and many others.
EVANGELICALS’ SUPPORT for the Jewish state today manifests itself primarily by advocacy for Israel. However, they insist that they will never publicly “pressure or oppose policies adopted by Israel’s democratically elected government.”
Evangelical political clout with the Democratic administration is considerably weaker than it was under president George W. Bush. Nevertheless, with more than 60 million adherents, they still represent one of the most powerful political forces in the United States. They recently formed a Christian counterpart to AIPAC to lobby congressmen and canvass against legislation hostile to Israel.
Many rank-and-file church-goers donate generously to projects designed to strengthen Israel. For example, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews initiated by Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein today represents the largest single donor to the Jewish Agency and was among those who contributed seed money to launch Nefesh B’Nefesh.
The 50 dedicated representatives of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, which has branches in 80 nations, spearhead the noble Christian Zionist presence in the Holy Land. They publish and broadcast information about Israel to the world. From generous contributions from members, they fund substantial social programs including assistance to integrate immigrants and support for former Gush Katif residents. They actively promote missions to Israel and host major pilgrim tours. They now represent one of the most dynamic sources of Israeli tourism.
And in addition to any biblical command, it’s just the right thing morally to do to support Israel, a free country surrounded by unfree countries and peoples determined to destroy it.
Eyes on Jerusalem! . . . And the rulers of the United States need to make sure (for America’s sake as much as anyone else’s) that that is one part of the world, at least, where principle still trumps pragmatism. (But it doesn’t look good.)
Here we go again....
He says “missionary” like it’s a bad thing. Jews need Jesus just like everyone else. But it’s their choice. We don’t slit throats.
That being said, evangelical support for Israel is not based on whether or not they accept Christ. It IS based on our understanding of the Bible. Why is ours worse than their?
Finally, liberal Jews, like almost all liberals that I have known or become aware of, are ungrateful dogs. They will suck up whatever you offer without ever offering anything in return. This is a “progressive”, not a Jewish trait, as I have known some very wonderful Jews who were neither liberal, nor mean.
It’s all in how you view the world, and your place in it. Liberals tend to think they know how to run it better than God does, not understanding that Satan is the ruler of this world.
One evangelical denomination (The Foursquare Church - 8 million members) held its annual convention in Jerusalem a couple of years ago in order to show support for Israel. This was the first and only time the convention had ever been held outside of the U.S. Many of the main speakers at that convention were Jewish leaders too. These guys are serious in their support of Israel and praying for the peace of Jerusalem.
Bingo!
Good summary. I only wish that liberal Jews would be as proud of Israel as Conservative Jews, Evangelical Christians and most non-religious Conservatives in this country are.
As for ‘conversion’, merely speaking the Gospel should not be considered some sort of hate crime. We are taught to look at it as a sign of love for someone. As another poster aptly said — we do not slit throats nor send in suicide bombers.
The sad reality is that a large number of American Jews look at Evangelical Christians as more hateful than their real enemy — Islamic Radicalism.
However most Jews I’ve met from Israel seem to have a deep appreciation for America, Conservatives and Christians.
These are the same “evangelicals” who teach that 2/3 of the Jews living in Judea at the time of their very-soon-to-be “great tribulation” will slaughtered in unbelief before they can know their Messiah. That’s millions of people given the present demographics of the Middle East.
The purge of Israel in their time of trouble [the future pre-trib “great tribulation”, ed.] is described by Zechariah in these words: "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried" (Zechariah 13:8, 9). According to Zechariah’s prophecy, two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish, but the one third that are left will be refined and be awaiting the deliverance of God at the second coming of Christ which is described in the next chapter of Zechariah. [John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [1962] 1988), p. 108.Hagee and Walvoord are cut from the same theological mold when it comes to prophecy and future Israel.
Of course this is after the time when their “B.F.F.”, the pre-trib evangelicals, are snatched away from all the trouble. The unbelieving Jews are Left Behind® to suffer the wrath of God by the agency of the pre-tribbers’ antichrist.
Rather than warning Jewish people about the impending doom in Judea and steering people away, these “B.F.F.” are funding emigration efforts by Jews to Israel like sheep to the slaughter.
they reject replacement theology,
Apart from the bogeyman moniker, there are those of us who have not been suckered by the pessimist futurism and are the true friends of Israel. For this we are referred to in disparaging terms, because we have not bought into a lie regarding future events. We do not see future destruction, but future blessing for the elect in all nations by the salvation offered to the world in Jesus Christ. See Not Replacement...Expansion! for an outline of the truth.
What chr*stians believe is their problem. Ultimately, there ain't gonna be no "antichrist" and no "second coming." The real Mashiach is going to come for the first time and all the world will acknowledge the G-d of Israel (minus any "intermediaries").
I understand your error. I was simply using your post to comment on the larger error in the OP.
Understood (though the error is not on my part).
Actually it is and you are entitled to hold it.
Christian Zionism is blasphemy. It is a heresy. Christians have no theological stake whatsoever in the modern State of Israel. It is an anti-God, anti-Christ nation. Until it repents and says "blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord," it will continue to be under the wrath of God. The modern State of Israel permits the persecution of Christians and Christian missionaries. We must pray that God will change the hearts of Jews, as of all other pagans, to receive Christ. But to support the enemies of the Gospel is not the mark of a Gospel minister, but of an anti-Christ.
Correction: Evangelical support for the restoration of the Jewish People to 'Eretz Yisra'el is not at all a recent phenomenon as the author naively assertsThese are the same “evangelicals” who teach that 2/3 of the Jews living in Judea at the time of their very-soon-to-be “great tribulation” will slaughtered in unbelief before they can know their Messiah. That’s millions of people given the present demographics of the Middle East.
Now they would be. The meaning of "evangelical", as you know but Zionist Conspirator may not, has shifted over the years. Those that ZC asserts were supporting Jewish return to Palestine (sic) three and four centuries ago would have been, if anything, Puritan post and amils. See Iain H. Murray's Puritan Hope. Certainly not fueled by modern dispensational expectations.
An article that got posted on Freerepublic a few weeks ago tipped me over from thinking that Christian Zionism was merely wrongheaded, to thinking it was positively dangerous.
Unlike, say, Saudi Arabia?
A word of advice, topcat . . . you argue with "dispies" and "premils" all you want to, because I don't have a dog in that fight. But you start singling out Israel as somehow "uniquely" evil, and you and me are gonna go 'round and 'round. Okay?
Whatever separates all you Notzerim--and goodness knows chr*stianity isn't so much a religion as a whole spectrum of religions--you all have one thing in common. You assume the truth of chr*stianity from the outset and then read it into the Hebrew Bible. To presume that Orthodox Jews are "anti-G-d" when they merely continue to worship G-d they way have have since the days of Moses (whom you claim to acknowledge) instead of "changing" when everyone was supposed to makes you no more than a proto-moslem. You folks argue about what "took the place of Judaism" all you want to; I'll stick with what you all agree was right "once."
Nowhere to be found in the comments, but thanks for playing.
To presume that Orthodox Jews are "anti-G-d" when they merely continue to worship G-d they way have have since the days of Moses (whom you claim to acknowledge)
According to the rabbis, not Moses. Let's not get confused since that is part of the error of modern Judaism.
BTW, what tribe are you descended from?
No, they still keep the mitvot and write the Torah Scrolls like they always have. If you mean the prayers, those started long before there was a J*sus to reject. And as for not worshiping in the Temple . . . it was destroyed once before and they had to do without then too. It was rebuilt once, it will be rebuilt again.
BTW, what tribe are you descended from?
I think the Angles, Saxons, or Jutes, but I'm not sure.
Why don't you go back to arguing with your "co-religionists" now? We have nothing to discuss.
They do not observe the law as given by Moses, but rather as interpreted by the rabbis after thousands of years without a temple, priesthood and sacrifices.
Rabbinism is not the religion of Torah.
Rabbinism is not the religion of Torah.
Not knowing the first thing about Torah yourself, you are unqualified to pontificate on the subject. And as for "traditions," that's where the vowels and punctuation are. The Written Torah is nothing but consonants--and were it not for Rabbinic Tradition, there'd be no Written Torah for your Thomas Nelson Printing Press to spit out a translation of.
The traditions which you so despise were handed down from one generation to the next from Mt. Sinai onward. Without them one not only would not have a Written Torah to begin with (it would have vanished after the first generation), but would not know the correct way to perform the commandments. Do you know how to "heave" or "wave" the respective offerings? No you do not. The Written Torah doesn't say. These things were handed down orally. Or how about the calendar. Where in the Written Torah are the instructions for proclaiming a new moon? And what about the necessary insertion of an extra month at certain intervals in order to keep Pesach coming in the spring instead of slipping back gradually into the winter? None of these things were written down; they were handed down from one generation to the next. I do give you credit for being more consistent and less hypocritical than Catholic and Orthodox chr*stians in rejecting Rabbinic tradition, but it's still silly.
Do you really think it's "self-evident" that Judaism was meant to cease with the destruction of the Second Temple? That's also nonsense. During the Forty Years in the Wilderness there were times when the offerings were made (when they stayed in one place) and times when they weren't (when they were traveling). The Philistines captured the Ark at one time. The Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians. And you know what? It wasn't for "rejecting the messiah." The second destruction was also prophesied in the Torah, and again, the cause was deviation from the Torah, not "rejecting the messiah." And the only remedy is to return to the Torah, not accept the new religion. Over and over and over the Torah warns not to depart from it; there is not a word about "you'd better accept the messiah when he comes or you're in big trouble!"
As I pointed out not long ago in the thread about the scribe in Texas, there is no way any non-Jew can know more about the Torah than the Sages. When you can write a Torah Scroll and have it an exact replica of that written by Moses then get back to me. Otherwise kindly spend your time attacking Hal Lindsay. That's about all you're qualified to handle.
As I have said before, I grant that the "new testament" makes claims about the Hebrew Bible. But you have to already accept its authority to grant those claims any expertise. Without this a priori assumption there's simply nothing there. And since I reject the "new testament," you're kind of stuck.
Your first four paragraphs were full of non sequiturs and ad hominems, so no response to all that is necessary. E.g., being able to copy a document does not mean you understand what is in the document.
But you have rightly outlined that the fundamental issue here is one of authority. Does Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, have authority that is correctly captured for us in the New Testament, and thus does the New Testament properly interpret the Old, or do the rabbis of apostate Israel who were “left behind” from inclusion in the new covenant have authority? The choice is quite straight forward.
The extra-Torah traditions of the rabbis, which the Noahides concept/movement is but one example, do not have universal acceptance and appeal within the larger Jewish community. All sorts of Torah scholars have all sorts of explanations and rules for Torah teaching. Yet many of these traditions were raised precisely to counteract the effect of God’s rejection of apostate Israel. (It’s ironic to see all the ways the Torah is being potently bent in order to set the stage for raising up a false temple and priesthood in this age.)
All the Torah points to Jesus Christ. "Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’" (Luke 24:44) As the author of Hebrews -- under divine inspiration -- testifies, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; " (Heb. 1:1,2).
The Jews of the 1st century (and since) who properly understood Torah became the followers of Jesus Christ by inclusion in the new covenant. They proved themselves to be the true sons of Abraham. Rabbinic Judaism, and her stepchildren like Noahides, has been a religion in denial for 2000 years.
Your first four paragraphs were full of non sequiturs and ad hominems, so no response to all that is necessary. E.g., being able to copy a document does not mean you understand what is in the document.
You can't even read the document they faithfully and accurately transcribe. You've probably never even seen the sacred letters, let alone have the slightest idea what truths they contain. And if you can't tell that VeHa'Adam yada` 'et Chavvah 'ishto vatahar vateled ben means that Cain had been conceived and born before rather than after the expulsion from Eden, then you certainly aren't qualified to tell "Rabbinic Jews" what it really says.
But you have rightly outlined that the fundamental issue here is one of authority. Does Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, have authority that is correctly captured for us in the New Testament, and thus does the New Testament properly interpret the Old, or do the rabbis of apostate Israel who were “left behind” from inclusion in the new covenant have authority? The choice is quite straight forward.
Yes, that is precisely the issue! Is the "new testament" to be believed in spite of the fact that the Torah nowhere even so much as implies that such a thing is in the future? If you want to take that awful chance, then I can't stop you. But for those of us who choose the "old paths" and the Sure Word of G-d, your "new testament" and its claims of authority are no different from those of the "book of mormon."
The extra-Torah traditions of the rabbis, which the Noahides concept/movement is but one example,
What would you do without the vowels and punctuation which are part of that "extra-Torah traditions of the rabbis?" And as for the attacks on "extra-Torah traditions," those were invented by Catholics and Orthodox chr*stians who hypocritically do the very same thing with the "new testament."
do not have universal acceptance and appeal within the larger Jewish community.
I freely admit that the vast majority of Jews in the world today are non-observant and even define their Jewishness vis-a-vis the Bible and religion (which they regard as "chr*stian"). No one has attacked irreligious Jews more than I, or more savagely than I. However, for all their faults, everyone knows who the Jews are. Every single chr*stian in the world may be pious and devout beyond measure, but which of them are "really" chr*stians and which are heretics? No one can agree! The Protestant world is divided . . . the ancient liturgical world is divided (not only among Catholics, Orthodox, Non-Chalcaedonians, and Nestorians, but even these groups are divided into mutually hostile groups that deny each others' validity) . . . shoot, there is only one thing in the world that all chr*stians agree on and that is that Judaism was the true religion "once" but it isn't any more! That doesn't sound like a very good foundation for a "conservative" religion to me. How many times is G-d going to "change His mind" in the future?
All sorts of Torah scholars have all sorts of explanations and rules for Torah teaching. Yet many of these traditions were raised precisely to counteract the effect of God’s rejection of apostate Israel.
Haven't you heard that chr*stianity is also "apostate?" "The book of mormon" says so!
(It’s ironic to see all the ways the Torah is being potently bent in order to set the stage for raising up a false temple and priesthood in this age.)
You can't even read the Torah, much less begin to understand it. And as for the nonsensical position that the destruction of the Temple two thousand years ago meant that G-d had "self-evidently" replaced Judaism with chr*stianity--that is utter nonsense. It is not the Temple, but the Torah that is central. There can be, and has often in history been, a Torah without a Temple, but there will never be a Temple without a Torah. It is the Torah as a whole (of which the Temple is a part) that is eternal.
All the Torah points to Jesus Christ.
That is a lie. Chr*stianity claims that the Torah points to J*sus Chr*st, but the Torah itself does not make any such claim.
"Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’" (Luke 24:44)
Now you see, you've just proved my point. You can't quote the Torah to excuse your belief in J*sus, so instead you quote the "new testament's" claim about J*sus being the fulfillment of the Torah. Do the claims of the qur'an make it a holy book?
As the author of Hebrews -- under divine inspiration -- testifies, "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; " (Heb. 1:1,2).
And again, you commit the fallacy of "affirmation of the consequent" (assuming the point in question instead of proving it by external proofs). Of course, this is all you can do. Why do you think that quoting Hebrews proves anything to someone who doesn't accept its authority? Would you like me to quote the "book of mormon," the qur'an, or some other "holy book" to "prove" something to you?
In order for the claims of chr*stianity to be true they have to be verifiable by the Hebrew Bible. They're not. Instead all chr*stians can do is invoke the authority of the "new testament" to authoritatively interpret the Hebrew Bible, which is the topic in dispute. Sounds like you're kinda stuck. But I tell you what . . . why don't you just keep posting quotes from the "new testament" and I'm sure if I read enough of them I'll "come under conviction" and "get saved." I doubt I'll agree with you on much; shoot, I may become a Hardshell Baptist for all you know, but I suppose that will satisfy you, since you seem absolutely paranoid about the Third Temple. What are you, one of those Chuck Carlson John Birchers?
The Jews of the 1st century (and since) who properly understood Torah became the followers of Jesus Christ by inclusion in the new covenant. They proved themselves to be the true sons of Abraham.
And the "real" chr*stians became mormons after G-d "sent" Joseph Smith to teach them the "truth," and everyone else is apostate.
Rabbinic Judaism, and her stepchildren like Noahides, has been a religion in denial for 2000 years.
And chr*stianity has been in denial since the coming of Mohammed, and islam since the coming of Guru Nanak, and Sikhs since the coming of Bahaullah (or however you spell it). That's what happens when you accept the concept of "progressive revelation." There's simply no end to it!
Again, your repetition of the claims of chr*stianity prove nothing other than that is what chr*stianity claims. Those claims are, regardless of what you were brought up to believe, not at all "self-evidently true."
Pointing out truth in the face if error is not an argument. The issue was settled 2000 years ago with the appearance of Messiah.
BTW, is the inability to spell out "Christ" or "Christianity" a Noahide rule, or just a commentary on your opinion of others?
And you "know" he was the messiah because the "new testament" tells you so. But why should the "new testament" be any more worthy of belief than the "holy qur'an," the "book of mormon," or any other such work?
Good gravy. You people have no external proof of your beliefs whatsoever, do you? So much for rational thought.
I can understand why the "dispies" bother you, but why are you arguing with me? I'm not a chr*stian at all. Does the very existence of Rabbinic Judaism and its "Noachide stepchild" (or whatever you call it) bother you that much? Maybe you should go to "We Hold These Truths" and cry to Chuck Carlson. He can post something in his "Pharisee Watch" about it.
Now who is arguing?
Let me repeat the facts in case you missed them, Rabbinic Judaism and her offspring are religions in denial.
Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel, the guarantor of the new covenant in His blood. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.The followers of Jesus Christ are the true sons of Abraham, Jews and gentiles together in the commonwealth, spiritual Israel. It was real Jews who proclaimed that this new expression of Israel was the royal priesthood and holy nation of God.
There is nothing to argue.
Yes yes yes. You say this, and you say this, and you say this, and you say this, over and over and over, but you don't prove it. All you do is insist on it. But the funny thing is, what topcat54 insists on isn't the standard of objective truth in religion.
But I must say you finally got around to quoting the Hebrew Bible. Congrats to you for that. You are learning. Only thing is, how do you prove that Isaiah is talking about J*sus? How can you be sure? If the only reason you have for believing this is that the "new testament" says so, you're just reasoning in a circle, and we're right back where we started. Why don't you get that little kink worked out and get back to me, okay?
And btw, the Torah is a higher revelation than any prophet. The level of Revelation descended after Torah, rather than ascended. If revelation were progressive as everyone other than Jews believe, then there would be no end to it! There's always one more "final revelation," but there's only one First Revelation!
Or else, turn from this [Christ’s Sermon on the Mount] to a first reading of the wisdom of the Jewish Fathers in their Talmud. It little matters, what part be chosen for the purpose. Here, also, the reader is at disadvantage, since his instructors present to him too frequently broken sentences, extracts torn from their connection, words often mistranslated as regards their real meaning, or misapplied as regards their bearing and spirit; at best, only isolated sentences. Take these in their connection and real meaning, and what a terrible awakening! Who, that has read half-a-dozen pages successively of any part of the Talmud, can feel otherwise than by turns shocked, pained, amused, or astounded? There is here wit and logic, quickness and readiness, earnestness and zeal, but by the side of it terrible profanity, uncleanness, superstition and folly. Taken as a whole, it is not only utterly unspiritual, but anti-spiritual. Not that the Talmud is worse than might be expected of such writings in such times and circumstances, perhaps in many respects much better - always bearing in mind the particular standpoint of narrow nationalism, without which Talmudism itself could not have existed, and which therefore is not an accretion, but an essential part of it. But, taken not in abrupt sentences and quotations, but as a whole, it is so utterly and immeasurably unlike the New Testament, that it is not easy to determine which, as the case may be, is greater, the ignorance or the presumption of those who put them side by side. Even where spiritual life pulsates, it seems propelled through valves that are diseased, and to send the life-blood gurgling back upon the heart, or along ossified arteries that quiver not with life at its touch. And to the reader of such disjointed Rabbinic quotations there is this further source of misunderstanding, that the form and sound of words is so often the same as that of the sayings of Jesus, however different their spirit. For, necessarily, the wine - be it new or old - made in Judæa, comes to us in Palestinian vessels. The new teaching, to be historically true, must have employed the old forms and spoken the old language. But the ideas underlying terms equally employed by Jesus and the teachers of Israel are, in everything that concerns the relation of souls to God, so absolutely different as not to bear comparison. Whence otherwise the enmity and opposition to Jesus from the first, and not only after His Divine claim had been pronounced? These two, starting from principles alien and hostile, follow opposite directions, and lead to other goals. He who has thirsted and quenched his thirst at the living fount of Christ's Teaching, can never again stoop to seek drink at the broken cisterns of Rabbinism. (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1883, III:18)
Throughout the past two millenia there have been Jews who converted to chr*stianity, just as there were Jews in the first thousand years after Sinai who worshiped idols. Naturally any Jew who converts to chr*stianity is going to justify it. Such justifications do not constitute proof.
Why don't you stop all this nonsense and just prove, from the Hebrew Bible (the text you and I both accept and which is not in dispute) that J*sus is the messiah and that the Torah was a temporary measure to prepare for him? You can quote the "new testament," you can quote the justifications of apostates, but you cannot prove by the Hebrew Bible that what you believe is true. It can't be done. And since it can't be done (and all the burden is on the "pro" side of an argument), then it seems that I win by default.
We'll go as long as you want to, but it would be so much simpler if you just proved your beliefs by the Hebrew Bible, wouldn't it?
If you do not do so in your very next post, I will conclude that you cannot and that you concede my position.
That has already been done for you by the writers of the New Testament. Every place it says, "... that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets ...".
The apostate Jews, the forefathers of modern Rabbinism, are the ones spoken of in places like Matthew 13:
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.' "But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear itBlindness in part is happening even to this day, but it is the remnant that will be saved.
Not arguing, just stating facts.
We'll go as long as you want to, but it would be so much simpler if you just proved your beliefs by the Hebrew Bible, wouldn't it?
That has already been done for you by the writers of the New Testament. Every place it says, "... that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets ...".
But as I have told you over and over and over, I do not recognize the authority of the authors of the "new testament" to interpret the Hebrew Bible. Do you trust the "authors" of the "book of mormon" to interpret the chr*stian bible? Time and again I have asked you to prove chr*stianity by the Hebrew Bible whose authority we both recognize. You have not done so because you cannot do so.
I accept your concession of defeat. Have a nice day.
I guess it's just part of the delusion.
Have a nice day.
Every day is a "nice day" for those who have surrendered themselves to Messiah Jesus. We do not have to suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), since we know the truth (John 14:6) and He has set us free (John 8:32).
I accept your concession of defeat.I guess it's just part of the delusion.
In that, resembling certain others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.