Posted on 12/08/2004 11:08:38 PM PST by Mike10542
Hey fellow freepers, having been swept up in the battle of conservatives first liberals and believers in God vs. non-beleivers I clearly have chosen the right side here (hence me writing on Free Republic). The alignment of Jews like myself and many fellow Christians is one that I feel is very necesary to win the war against evil and have peace in our time. Although I choose to ignore all the leftists and others who try to break up this loving partnership by saying "They are only on your side becuase they want the Jews in control of Jerusalem so Christ returns," I am looking to explore what the Bible really teaches about the Jewish fate from the Christian perspective. It is hard to find what the majority opinion is because the internet is, well, the internet. What I have made out so far is that during rapture I beleive 2/3's of Jews are killed, but one third survive. So my questions are:
1) What do the 2/3's of Jews die from (war, just happens????)
2) What happens to the remaning 1/3 of Jews after they survive?
3) Do any of this remaining 1/3 of Jews make it past the final judgement of God (some interpertations say no, others say the remaining Jews are allowed to pass once accepting God and I think Christ)
I truly beleive in my Jewish fate as I have been raised Jewish, but my mom is Christian. So each religion I respect and believe are good. Ultimately, I hope us Jews and Christians both make it together to the promised land (and only the Muslims are sent to hell!)
Thanks for all your answers. Also, feel free to direct me to anywhere where I can learn more about this subject.
Just constantinian christianity dressed up in sheeps clothing. Been there, done that. Don't bother.
It's important to point out in this discussion that the idea that 2/3rds of the Jewish people would be slain in the End Times is not a New Testament teaching, but comes directly from the Tanakh, specifically, Zechariah 13. These deaths would be by the wars and persecutions of a false messiah (the Antichrist, in Christian parlance). From that perspective, you might want to do some digging in your own Scriptures and rabbis' commentaries on the End Times, especially those dealing with the aforementioned chapter, the book of Daniel, and Ezekiel 38-39.
There is, of course, a great deal of controversy among Christians about which prophecies are yet future and how the Second Coming of Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) will come about. If you want to know the gist of these debates, I'll be happy to post a summary here when I get home from work; if not, don't worry about it.
For my part, I believe that Christians and Jews who refuse to worship the Antichrist will be persecuted together. After a time of testing, Yeshua will appear in the clouds of the sky to ressurrect the dead and gather the Church to Himself. The Day of the Lord that the prophets wrote of will then commence. I believe that at that time, those Jews who have not already come to Yeshua as their Messiah but who also did not worship the Antichrist in place of Adonai will be left behind, but sealed and protected through the Day of the Lord. Then the Messiah will return, gather the remnant of Israel, fight the Last Battle, and rule the world as a distinctly Jewish king and Messiah from David's throne in Jerusalem, as the prophets declare.
That's the short-short version, of course. If you'd like to engage in further conversation about this, I'd be glad to answer your questions here, or you can Freepmail me if you'd like to talk more privately.
So, you can't name any Christian between 100 AD and 1800 AD who believes the rapture crap, can you?
Of course most Protestants hold that view. If they held any other view, they could not consider themselves true churches, could they?
In point of fact, apostolic succession refers to the laying on of hands, as Acts and the Pauline letters demonstrate. Paul himself, though converted in Acts 9, is not an apostle until the laying on of hands in Acts 13:3. Note he is only called a teacher and prophet in Acts 13:1. None of his speeches are recorded and he is never called an apostle until after Acts 13:3. Why? Because it's Acts of the Apostles, not Acts of the Lay People, and Paul ain't an apostle until the Church lays hands on him.
There are four generations of apostles in the NT:
(1) Jesus who is an apostle from the Father,
(2) the Twelve made apostles by Jesus,
(3) Paul, Barnabas and the councils of elders who were made apostles by the Twelve, then
(4) Timothy and Titus, who were made apostles by Paul and the councils of elders.
NONE of the early Christians, that is, none of the Christians in the first millennium of the Church, recognized ANYONE as an apostle unless they had been recieved into this apostolic line through the laying on of hands by a person who was already consecrated an apostle.
The invention of the new definition of apostolic succession promulgated by Protestants is their wild attempt to make up for the fact that they don't have it. Period.
I assume you know that "apostle" means one who is sent. Read Romans 10. No church that's not in the charge of a man in a series of sent men that originated with Jesus can be apostolic.
To insist on interpreting the Bible only literally is to abuse it, because it's overflowing with prophetic significance.
The circumstances of Isaac's birth (to offer just one example) are not just a coincidence, you know. Everything about it points to Christ and his Church.
There can be no such thing as Christianity that's "more Jewish." The New Covenant is not called to conform to the Old; it's the fulfillment of the Old. Far better to wish that Judaism would be more Christian.
The fact that you're confused about why Christians don't worship on the Sabbath is not surprising, but you really owe it to yourself to have a look in the catechism. We celebrate the sacrifice of the eucharist, as Jesus commanded, and we do so on Sunday -- the first day of the week -- because as Christians we are a new creation, living in a new eschatological "day". Christ is the new man, who makes all things new in him. The world is re-made with his victory over death. In the creation story of Genesis, God's work is finished on a friday. In the NT, Jesus's work ends when he says "it is finished" -- on a friday. In the OT, God rests on the Sabbath. In the NT, Jesus's body rests in the tomb on the Sabbath. Christians celebrate the 8th day -- the day of the new creation.
The fate of the Jews is prophetically indicated in Genesis 33, when the older brother Esau is reconciled to the younger, and accepts his gifts.
Jews are our older brothers in the faith. Consider the recurring biblical dynamic of older and younger brothers: Abel is favored over Cain. Isaac is preferred over Ishmael. Jacob is preferred over Esau. David (destined for kingship!) slays Goliath -- while fighting naked! -- not his older brother. You can't dismiss this as coincidence. Similarly, in the NT parable of the prodigal son, favor comes to the younger son who was lost, to the dismay of his older (law-abiding!) brother.
There is no such thing as a purely objective interpretation of scripture.
A non-sequitur. As anyone with knowledge of the origin of the haftarah reading understands.
And Muslims believe that Islam supercedes Christianity.
Jesus was a Jew, so He could bring Judaism to perfection. Mohammed was a pagan - neither Christian nor Jew - so there's no continuity there.
In other words, Mohammed and Islam are simply wrong.
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.