Christian/Jew organization?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformingstudent

Puritan Board Junior
I was recently watching a program on ISPN (just stopped there for a second) where they were asking Christians to send money to help relocate Jews to Israel from Russia. the idea being that we are to help God's "chosen" people. the Jews get back to the land that is theirs by promise. A few of todays famous Christians are on the band wagon pleading for our $$ to help those over there in antisemitic Russia get back to their promised land.
What is the reformed response to this kind of manipulation and idea that we some how owe the Jewish people our help?
I am not against sending aid to those in need but to give it out of a sense that it is right because they are God's people, even though most if not all are Christ haters and do not know the God of their fathers (Abraham, David, etc,etc) makes no sense to me. I pray that they will come to the true faith that is in Christ alone but I do not see where it is scriptural to aid those who are apostate.
 
It isn't.

The thought is that by aiding these Jews we are helping God fulfill prophecy! The idea is that the quicker that Israel is full of Jews the quicker the Rapture will happen and Daniels 70th week can begin!

It's just silly.
 
Originally posted by houseparent
It isn't.

The thought is that by aiding these Jews we are helping God fulfill prophecy! The idea is that the quicker that Israel is full of Jews the quicker the Rapture will happen and Daniels 70th week can begin!

It's just silly.


If not mistaken I believe that it's against the law in Israel for Christians to evangelize. Funny how they don't mind asking f Christians to help them and yet at the same time prevent the gospel from being preached. It's men like John Hagee, Tim LaHey and all those who are keeping Jews from knowing the truth. If they believe that they (the Jews) are still the chosen people, than why witness to them about Christ if they
are saved already? instead of helping them know their Messiah they are helping them in their blindness.
 
*** the idea being that we are to help God's "chosen" people.***

Do not waste your money on :tombstone: ideas.people have been :deadhorse: this for years.

andreas.:candle:
 
Aside from all the dispensationalist delusions (is that REALLY the motivation of such ministries???), I would think that it would open the door for LOTS of evangelism though, no? Such a ministry would be a quite a practical manifestation of the love of Christ to the apostate Jewish populous in the former Soviet Union. God's desire is that Israel (or those which the Father has given to the Son) would be saved (i.e., come to a saving knowledge of Christ as Messiah). Sounds like an unique opportunity to bring the engrafted Word of God back to the Jews of Russia.
 
I don't believe in religious Zionism, but I'm all for political Zionism. I commend the book "Exodus" by Leon Uris on this subject, which traces the history of the Jewish people leading up to 1948. To clarify, I don't think of Israel today as the fulfillment of any particular prophecy - a la dispensationalism. However, in the interests of charity to a persecuted people who may yet come to a saving knowledge of the Messiah (Rom. 9-11) and who today suffer at the hands of terrorists who hate America and Israel and nevertheless stand for comparative freedom in the Middle East, I support charity towards Israel on a national and individual level, along with every effort to evangelize our friends -- as Paul said, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10.1)
 
Originally posted by houseparent
It isn't.

The thought is that by aiding these Jews we are helping God fulfill prophecy! The idea is that the quicker that Israel is full of Jews the quicker the Rapture will happen and Daniels 70th week can begin!

It's just silly.

The irony is that many of these same folks believe that during the future "great tribulation" 2/3 of the Jews living in Israel will be killed per Zech 13:8. Seems their efforts are only jacking up the number.
 
I think you're all deluded, so there!

Andrew said: as Paul said, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10.1) But this verse isn't relevant to modern Israel. Ancient Israel was required to maintain their genealogy for inheritance purposes and they were commanded not to intermarry. They didn't. In fact no one disputes the fact that the vast majority of the 10 northern tribes were lost to history through assimilation. What makes anyone think that the 2 southern tribes escaped the same destiny? Modern Jews can't trace their ancestry back more than a few generations, much less 2,000+ yrs. All of the genealogical records were destroyed in the first century. They certainly can't get back to Abraham. Besides all of this is the fact that the majority of modern Jews probably descended from the Khazars - a Turkish people who lived in the steppes of Russia - who were Jewish converts and had no physical descent from Abraham.

As far as politics go why should we support a bunch of religious imposters usurping the land inhabited for centuries by another - particularly if a large portion of that population are our fellow Christians! And Andrew I would love to know what "practical Zionism" means/looks like to you?
 
Originally posted by VERITAS

Besides all of this is the fact that the majority of modern Jews probably descended from the Khazars - a Turkish people who lived in the steppes of Russia - who were Jewish converts and had no physical descent from Abraham.

And Andrew I would love to know what "practical Zionism" means/looks like to you?[/color]

Could you, please, give documentation about the Khazars?

Andrew said "political", not practical Zionism.
 
Originally posted by VERITAS
I think you're all deluded, so there!

Andrew said: as Paul said, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10.1) But this verse isn't relevant to modern Israel. Ancient Israel was required to maintain their genealogy for inheritance purposes and they were commanded not to intermarry. They didn't. In fact no one disputes the fact that the vast majority of the 10 northern tribes were lost to history through assimilation. What makes anyone think that the 2 southern tribes escaped the same destiny? Modern Jews can't trace their ancestry back more than a few generations, much less 2,000+ yrs. All of the genealogical records were destroyed in the first century. They certainly can't get back to Abraham. Besides all of this is the fact that the majority of modern Jews probably descended from the Khazars - a Turkish people who lived in the steppes of Russia - who were Jewish converts and had no physical descent from Abraham.

As far as politics go why should we support a bunch of religious imposters usurping the land inhabited for centuries by another - particularly if a large portion of that population are our fellow Christians! And Andrew I would love to know what "practical Zionism" means/looks like to you?

Where is the documentation behind this info. This all sounds highly suspect.
 
Originally posted by VERITAS
I think you're all deluded, so there!

Andrew said: as Paul said, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10.1) But this verse isn't relevant to modern Israel. Ancient Israel was required to maintain their genealogy for inheritance purposes and they were commanded not to intermarry. They didn't. In fact no one disputes the fact that the vast majority of the 10 northern tribes were lost to history through assimilation. What makes anyone think that the 2 southern tribes escaped the same destiny? Modern Jews can't trace their ancestry back more than a few generations, much less 2,000+ yrs. All of the genealogical records were destroyed in the first century. They certainly can't get back to Abraham. Besides all of this is the fact that the majority of modern Jews probably descended from the Khazars - a Turkish people who lived in the steppes of Russia - who were Jewish converts and had no physical descent from Abraham.

As far as politics go why should we support a bunch of religious imposters usurping the land inhabited for centuries by another - particularly if a large portion of that population are our fellow Christians! And Andrew I would love to know what "practical Zionism" means/looks like to you?

Cheri,

As noted, I spoke of supporting political Zionism (in contrast with religious Zionism). I think you have misunderstood my statement. I specifically spoke against seeing specific fulfillment of prophecies in the return of the Jews to modern Israel. I do think the Jews have a claim to the land that is as equal to or better than the heathen Arabs who arrived after the Jewish diaspora. I do think that they have been persecuted by the world at large and the Arabs specifically. The Nazis and the Arabs worked together in that regard in the 1930s and their anti-Semitic collaboration is still evident today. All of this is why the UN in 1947 drew up a partition of the land so that Jews and Arabs could both have a place to live in that area. The Arabs instead declared war and have resorted to every barbaric, terrorist means to drive the Jews into the sea but have failed. The Jews, meanwhile, represent a mostly free society in contrast with Islamic totalitarianism elsewhere in the Middle East. They are a good ally for the United States, especially in the war against terrorism, and we as a nation are right to support them for political reasons. Israel has the moral high ground in the Middle East. To think of their return to the land as a specific fulfillment of prophecy, however, is foolishness. And I don't claim they are the literal descendants of Abraham. Many are indeed converts. Whether they are ethnic Jews or not, they are still Jews. I pray along with the Puritans who wrote in the Westminster Directory for Public Worship that we should pray for the conversion of the Jews, which they believed was prophesied in Romans at the end of the (post) millennium. I would commend to you a book called The Puritan Hope by Ian Murray which deals with the future conversion of the Jews very well. Modern Israel, then, is not a fulfillment of specific prophecy (so we can deal with them as an unbelieving nation not unlike America, or other formerly Christian European nations who nevertheless have a Judeo-Christian heritage), but the conversion of the Jews (wherever they are) in the future will be such a fulfillment (per Romans).
 
How could the Jews possibly have a "right" to this land? They are no less heathen than their Muslim enemies in my estimation.
 
How about instead of them donating money to move people into their own land.They can start sending money to the Christian missionaries all around the world who are out for the true calling of God.Bringing many sons and daughters to glory!

[Edited on 1-9-2005 by Average Joey]
 
Originally posted by Ianterrell
How could the Jews possibly have a "right" to this land? They are no less heathen than their Muslim enemies in my estimation.

How does anyone have a right to land? Because they were there by God's authorization and then they were forced out by unbelievers. The heathen Arabs who came after them have certainly no better claim than the Jews to the land. Between the two competing claims, only the Jews had a Biblical justification at one time. Now they have a legal claim based on the the 1947 UN partition. All of that adds up in my view to a better claim than the Arabs.
 
Hey Andrew, sorry about misquoting you. I was discussing this less than a month ago with another fellow and he called his political view "pragmatic Zionism" and then said it was a "practical stance". In either case I see no difference in "political Zionism" and "practical Zionism." It all boils down to the same common denominator - support of Zionism. Zionism started out as a practical/political movement rather than a religious one, but they are inseparably linked based on the foundation for Zionism - i.e. a Divine claim to the land.

Furthermore, your grasp of history is severely lacking. First, it doesn't matter one whit whether you "think the Jews have a claim to the land that is as equal to or better than the heathen Arabs who arrived after the Jewish diaspora." The heathen Jews are nothing but a religious movement just like the Muslims. If they are not the biological descendants of Abraham then how do you justify ANY claim of theirs to the land?!? The Arabs have been living in that land for at least 1400 yrs. Why is it suddenly permissable for religious foreigners from around the world to have any right to the land they have inhabited for centuries?

Secondly, why does persecution by "the world at large" translate into appropriation of the land of a Middle-Eastern ethnic group? And why should we care about the persecution of a heathen religious group? Is this the standard by which we choose who to support? If so, then why do we not equally support the persecution of heathen Muslims?

Third, what evidence do you have that "the Nazis and the Arabs worked together...in the 1930s and their anti-Semitic collaboration is still evident today." The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had some dealings with Hitler - he organized the Bosnian-Muslim S.S. (who ethnically were Europeans NØT Arabic), but there were S.S. outfits all over Europe - in Romania, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Lithuania, the Baltics, (even in India!) etc. Why single out the Arabs? Where were their gas chambers or concentration camps? How many native Palestinian Jews did they send off to Hitler's camps?!? Besides Hitler had Jewish soldiers. Do their co-religionists escape unscathed by their participation? (Read Hitler's Jewish Soldiers by Dr. Bryan Mark Rigg; the S.S. didn't come into being until 1934 - 50+ yrs after the onset of Zionism.)

Fourth, "THIS" is NØT "WHY the UN in 1947 drew up a partition of the land so that Jews and Arabs could both have a place to live in that area." The Allies, particularly the British and the U.S., stabbed the Arabs in the proverbial back. They promised them independence from the Ottoman Turks during WWI if they would fight with them. Zionism was becoming a force in the 1880s and the Arabs were justifiably concerned. The British were promising one thing to the Jews (Balfour correspondence) and the opposite thing to the Arabs (McMahon-Hussein correspondence) for their allegiance (see also President F.D. Roosevelt's assurances to King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud in Feb 1945 aboard the USS Quincy and reiterated by President Truman) . Why should one promise override the other - especially considering the native population? The British found themselves in a "sticky-wicket" and in 1947 decided to GIVE UP their Mandate over the land and TURN OVER the entire matter to the United Nations. But it was NØT because of Nazi-Arab "anti-semitic collaboration"!

Population
In 1516 there were appx 30 Jewish communities in different parts of Palestine with their center in Safed.
In 1837 Sir Moses Montefiore reported only 9,000 Jews in the land.
In 1880 the total population of Palestine was 480,000. Of this total 456,000 were Arabs (including a large number of Christian-Arabs)! Jews totalled 24,000 (or appx 5% of the population)
In the last 50 yrs the Arab-Christian population in Gaza and the West Bank has fallen from 22% to 2%! Before the 1993 Oslo Agreement, which handed Bethlehem to the Palestininan Authority, Christian Arabs made for 60 percent of its population; now they are down to 30 percent.
In 1914 there were 60,000 Jews (appx 9% of the total population).
Because Britain and the U.S. were severely limiting Jewish immigration during the War, Jewish immigration to Palestine (over which Britain had control) exploded and in 1947 they totalled 31% of the population.

Land Ownership
In 1918 Jews owned 2% of the land.
In 1935 Jews owned 5.5% of the land.
By 1947 they only owned 6% of the land!

With the founding of the "State of Israel" between 700,000 to 800,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were driven from their homes (i.e. appx 60% of the pre-war Arab population).

By the time of the ceasefire in Jan 1949, "Israel" had occupied 77% of the land.

But for you to just flippantly dismiss the native claim to the land by saying that "the Arabs instead declared war and have resorted to every barbaric, terrorist means to drive the Jews into the sea" is to deny their right to defend their HOMELAND where they have lived for 1400 years! Why then should America go after Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? After all, what right do we have to defend our homeland?!? Chasing after those guys is to "declare war and [resort] to every barbaric, terrorist means to drive [Al-Queda - a persecuted religious group] into [oblivion]." What right did American Indians have to defend their homeland? Surely we had EVERY right to come in and "legally buy" Manhattan for $24. (Too bad we purchased it from the wrong tribe!)

Israel has the "high moral ground," huh? Try telling that to the Neturei Karta and other similiar groups (JewsNØTzionists.org). Try telling that to Alfred M. Lilienthal the Jewish author of The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?.

Has Israel been a "good ally" for the U.S.? Try telling that to the family of the USS Liberty or to anyone who remembers how the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard stole US military secrets (and probably sold them to Russia!) Is Israel a "good ally" or has America's one-sided relationship with a bunch of religious imposters poisoned our relationship in the Middle East and around the world?

I would be very happy to discuss Romans 11 with you in a separate thread because I doubt very much that your (or Ian Murray's) view could stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture.

I'm sorry if this has come across as belligerent or abrasive. I don't mean for it to. I am very passionate about my convictions and do not think that the average person - particularly Christian - has stopped to consider the implications of their theological beliefs on the political landscape. Zionism had a lot to do with the development of Dispensationalism and we all know how much THAT theology has infected the culture at large.

Ian, please let me know what documentation you would like and what it is that you find highly suspect - that the majority of modern Jews are probably descendants of Turkish Khazars or that ancient Jews were required to maintain their genealogy?

And Andrew, please, please don't take this as a personal attack. I don't know you well enough for this to be personal. I'm simply arguing against your perception of history. I would like nothing better than for both of us to come to a true understanding of both Scripture and History. If I am wrong, then please prove me wrong. Sentimentalism will accomplish nothing.

Ultimately I don't believe peace can or will come to the Middle East apart from Christ (is that postmillennialism? ;) ). Christ never promised us an earthly peace. The peace promised by God is between Him and man through the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Luke 2:14).

Grace and Peace,
--Cheri




[Edited on 1-9-2005 by VERITAS]
 
Originally posted by VERITAS
Ian, please let me know what documentation you would like and what it is that you find highly suspect - that the majority of modern Jews are probably descendants of Turkish Khazars or that ancient Jews were required to maintain their genealogy?

That the majority of modern Jews are descendants of Turkisk Khazars.
 
I do not agree with Andrew on some points (although I will fight back to back with him on resistance to tyrants led by the lesser civil magistrate:handshake: ), on the other hand, having a working knowledge of Middle East History I thought he gave a fair presentation of the problem; however, I quibble with a few of his interpretations:handshake: :cool: . Bottom line: Andrew's knowledge of history is never lacking.

Also, I think that Iain Murray's view would hold up quite well.
 
Well the Jewish author Arthur Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe for one. Koestler's book is a lengthy treatment solely on this subject. The entire text is available online The Thirteenth Tribe | see also Khazaria.com.

The Jewish Encyclopedia has 5 pages on the Khazars and begins with this: "CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia..."

Any research whatsoever on the origin of the Ashkenazis/Ashkenazim who by far outnumber the "Sephardic" Jews. A Biblical study of the supposed origins of these two groups is enlightening in and of itself.

Another book which touches on the influence of Jewish-Khazars in America is "Iron Curtain Over America" by Col. John Beaty (a member of Military Intelligence Service of the War Dept) who was selected by the Albert Khan Foundation to investigate and report on world affairs. Personally I don't think Col. Beaty could prove that the majority of American Jewry are the direct descendants of the Khazars (with no intermarriage throughout the centuries), but I think he is arguing more from an ideological/cultural perspective than genetics.

Another excellent book to read is The Origins of British Israelites by O. Michael Friedman (who describes himself as a "Hebrew-Christian"). Although this book deals with the topic of Anglo-Israelism/Armstrongism the information against that cult is equally transferrable to the cult of Judaism. In other words, if British-Israelism is a fiction then Judaism collapses under the same scrutiny. Friedman's book is expensive and hard to obtain, but I benefited so much from it that I photocopied it (library edition) and would be glad to share my copy.

However, whether or not the majority of modern Jew descend from the Khazars, some other ethnic group or a mixture of ethnic groups is beside the point. The real point is that they cannot trace their ancestry to Abraham and if they cannot prove that they are Abraham's descendants then their claim to Palestine is worthless. It is worthless anyway in light of the coming of Christ and the abrogation of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:13).


[Edited on 1-9-2005 by VERITAS]
 
Originally posted by VERITAS
Hey Andrew, sorry about misquoting you. I was discussing this less than a month ago with another fellow and he called his political view "pragmatic Zionism" and then said it was a "practical stance". In either case I see no difference in "political Zionism" and "practical Zionism." It all boils down to the same common denominator - support of Zionism. Zionism started out as a practical/political movement rather than a religious one, but they are inseparably linked based on the foundation for Zionism - i.e. a Divine claim to the land.

Furthermore, your grasp of history is severely lacking. First, it doesn't matter one whit whether you "think the Jews have a claim to the land that is as equal to or better than the heathen Arabs who arrived after the Jewish diaspora." The heathen Jews are nothing but a religious movement just like the Muslims. If they are not the biological descendants of Abraham then how do you justify ANY claim of theirs to the land?!? The Arabs have been living in that land for at least 1400 yrs. Why is it suddenly permissable for religious foreigners from around the world to have any right to the land they have inhabited for centuries?

Secondly, why does persecution by "the world at large" translate into appropriation of the land of a Middle-Eastern ethnic group? And why should we care about the persecution of a heathen religious group? Is this the standard by which we choose who to support? If so, then why do we not equally support the persecution of heathen Muslims?

Third, what evidence do you have that "the Nazis and the Arabs worked together...in the 1930s and their anti-Semitic collaboration is still evident today." The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had some dealings with Hitler - he organized the Bosnian-Muslim S.S. (who ethnically were Europeans NØT Arabic), but there were S.S. outfits all over Europe - in Romania, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Lithuania, the Baltics, (even in India!) etc. Why single out the Arabs? Where were their gas chambers or concentration camps? How many native Palestinian Jews did they send off to Hitler's camps?!? Besides Hitler had Jewish soldiers. Do their co-religionists escape unscathed by their participation? (Read Hitler's Jewish Soldiers by Dr. Bryan Mark Rigg; the S.S. didn't come into being until 1934 - 50+ yrs after the onset of Zionism.)

Fourth, "THIS" is NØT "WHY the UN in 1947 drew up a partition of the land so that Jews and Arabs could both have a place to live in that area." The Allies, particularly the British and the U.S., stabbed the Arabs in the proverbial back. They promised them independence from the Ottoman Turks during WWI if they would fight with them. Zionism was becoming a force in the 1880s and the Arabs were justifiably concerned. The British were promising one thing to the Jews (Balfour correspondence) and the opposite thing to the Arabs (McMahon-Hussein correspondence) for their allegiance (see also President F.D. Roosevelt's assurances to King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud in Feb 1945 aboard the USS Quincy and reiterated by President Truman) . Why should one promise override the other - especially considering the native population? The British found themselves in a "sticky-wicket" and in 1947 decided to GIVE UP their Mandate over the land and TURN OVER the entire matter to the United Nations. But it was NØT because of Nazi-Arab "anti-semitic collaboration"!

Population
In 1516 there were appx 30 Jewish communities in different parts of Palestine with their center in Safed.
In 1837 Sir Moses Montefiore reported only 9,000 Jews in the land.
In 1880 the total population of Palestine was 480,000. Of this total 456,000 were Arabs (including a large number of Christian-Arabs)! Jews totalled 24,000 (or appx 5% of the population)
In the last 50 yrs the Arab-Christian population in Gaza and the West Bank has fallen from 22% to 2%! Before the 1993 Oslo Agreement, which handed Bethlehem to the Palestininan Authority, Christian Arabs made for 60 percent of its population; now they are down to 30 percent.
In 1914 there were 60,000 Jews (appx 9% of the total population).
Because Britain and the U.S. were severely limiting Jewish immigration during the War, Jewish immigration to Palestine (over which Britain had control) exploded and in 1947 they totalled 31% of the population.

Land Ownership
In 1918 Jews owned 2% of the land.
In 1935 Jews owned 5.5% of the land.
By 1947 they only owned 6% of the land!

With the founding of the "State of Israel" between 700,000 to 800,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were driven from their homes (i.e. appx 60% of the pre-war Arab population).

By the time of the ceasefire in Jan 1949, "Israel" had occupied 77% of the land.

But for you to just flippantly dismiss the native claim to the land by saying that "the Arabs instead declared war and have resorted to every barbaric, terrorist means to drive the Jews into the sea" is to deny their right to defend their HOMELAND where they have lived for 1400 years! Why then should America go after Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? After all, what right do we have to defend our homeland?!? Chasing after those guys is to "declare war and [resort] to every barbaric, terrorist means to drive [Al-Queda - a persecuted religious group] into [oblivion]." What right did American Indians have to defend their homeland? Surely we had EVERY right to come in and "legally buy" Manhattan for $24. (Too bad we purchased it from the wrong tribe!)

Israel has the "high moral ground," huh? Try telling that to the Neturei Karta and other similiar groups (JewsNØTzionists.org). Try telling that to Alfred M. Lilienthal the Jewish author of The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?.

Has Israel been a "good ally" for the U.S.? Try telling that to the family of the USS Liberty or to anyone who remembers how the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard stole US military secrets (and probably sold them to Russia!) Is Israel a "good ally" or has America's one-sided relationship with a bunch of religious imposters poisoned our relationship in the Middle East and around the world?

I would be very happy to discuss Romans 11 with you in a separate thread because I doubt very much that your (or Ian Murray's) view could stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture.

I'm sorry if this has come across as belligerent or abrasive. I don't mean for it to. I am very passionate about my convictions and do not think that the average person - particularly Christian - has stopped to consider the implications of their theological beliefs on the political landscape. Zionism had a lot to do with the development of Dispensationalism and we all know how much THAT theology has infected the culture at large.

Ian, please let me know what documentation you would like and what it is that you find highly suspect - that the majority of modern Jews are probably descendants of Turkish Khazars or that ancient Jews were required to maintain their genealogy?

And Andrew, please, please don't take this as a personal attack. I don't know you well enough for this to be personal. I'm simply arguing against your perception of history. I would like nothing better than for both of us to come to a true understanding of both Scripture and History. If I am wrong, then please prove me wrong. Sentimentalism will accomplish nothing.

Ultimately I don't believe peace can or will come to the Middle East apart from Christ (is that postmillennialism? ;) ). Christ never promised us an earthly peace. The peace promised by God is between Him and man through the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Luke 2:14).

Grace and Peace,
--Cheri




[Edited on 1-9-2005 by VERITAS]

Cheri,

I also don't want this to become a personal debate, although it is already clear we have strongly opposing views on this subject. I don't know why you have to say "it doesn't matter one whit what you think...". If you honestly think that then why debate? I am expressing an opinion and you are expressing a contrary opinion. We both believe we have evidence to support our views. We can explore that evidence if you like. I have only scratched the surface of reasoning my position, and I not going to give a full accounting of my views in a single post. Don't assume that when I don't address something it necessarily means that I completely misunderstand the history of the Middle East or that I am being flippant. These are serious issues and I do not speak lightly, nor do I necessarily feel the need to say every possible thing that could be said.

I will nevertheless say a few things in response to your comments.

Jews in Israel today come from a mix of different ethnic backgrounds, no doubt. I believe some are indeed ethnic Jews and others are not. There were converts to Judaism in the Old Testament, however. Not all Jews in the Old Testament, then, were ethnic Jews; nevertheless, I believe they are encompassed in Paul's comments in Romans 9-11. Therefore, I have hope that Jews (whether ethnic or not) will be converted en masse (not every one specifically, but in general) and that whether they reside in Israel or Brooklyn this will hold true. In cultural terms, the Jews of today hold to a heritage that hearkens back to Abraham, whether or not they are literal descendants of Abraham (again, I believe some are and some are not). They are united by that heritage. They are also united by their experiences of persecution in the last two thousand years. Their claim to the land, then, predates the Arab claim. The Arabs have never had a Biblical claim to the land; the Jews did at one point. They came back and settled there. They tried to get along with the Arabs. Some Arabs were friendly, but many were stirred up by the Grand Mufti that you referred to and motivated by hate made every effort to destroy the Jews. Anti-Semitism is not unique to Arabs, but they along with the Nazis, turned into an "art" form. I am well aware of Britain's role in the UN partition. I am also aware that the worldwide guilt over the Holocaust was very influential in leading up to the UN partition. I think this is probably the one time in history the UN made the right decision. Arabs had an opportunity to live in peace with Israel then (Israel called on Arabs to come back and live in Israel or at least in peace with Israel) and instead they declared war. They have initiated every war since then and lost every war. I have absolutely no sympathy for war-mongerers who live in hatred of Jews, and resort to terrorism to make their point. If the Arabs truly want peace, let them stop manufacturing bomb belts. I would be glad for Israel and the Arabs to work out a peaceful solution, but you are right, peace will only come from the Lord Jesus Christ reigning in the hearts of Jews and Muslims alike. Nevertheless, from a purely secular point of view, Israel is a nation that adheres to honorable conduct and punishes its soldiers when they break the law; whereas, Arab Muslims are completely given over to hate in their service of the demon-God Allah and therefore blindly and irrationally resort to every sort of evil tactic in the book to harm innocent people. I don't claim that Israel is without fault in all of their conduct. The USS Liberty is an issue that I cannot excuse Israel on. Nor, though, is America. We are not by any means a Christian or a righteous nation. But on a political level, nations that adhere in a general even nominal way to Judeo-Christian values like Israel and America are far superior morally to Islamic dictatorship and terrorists. I don't know why it is that some people irrationally hate the Jews. But the Puritans believed (as do I) that Romans 9-11 teaches a future conversion and engrafting of the Jews, and the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches us to pray towards that end in connection with the second petition of the Lord's Prayer (see Q. # 191). Let us not despise the Jews of today, and act like highminded Gentiles (Pauls warns us about this in Romans 11.1-32) but rather pray that they will be moved by the spirit of God to forsake Judaism and instead put their faith in the true Messiah who reigns from heaven even now.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Bottom line: Andrew's knowledge of history is never lacking.

Also, I think that Iain Murray's view would hold up quite well.

Well Jacob, where does my presentation of history come up short? Where have I misrepresented the facts?

And if that is a challenge - if you are throwing down the gauntlet on Andrew's behalf, then I accept.

My father knows my views very well, and when I read him the content of my post he commented that Ian Murray was no one to quibble with. I remain firm in my conviction that any view that looks for a future restoration of ETHNIC Israel to the people of God is pie-in-the-sky futurism and cannot be supported by Scripture or genetics.

Now Andrew said that he was not "claim[ing that] they are the literal descendants of Abraham. Many are indeed converts. Whether they are ethnic Jews or not, they are still Jews." But the point of Paul in Romans 11 was whether or not God had "cast away His people." I think we can all agree that Paul begins arguing about the fulfillment of the promises with regards to ETHNIC Israelites - i.e. the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." --Rom 11:1

Have Andrew start a thread. Give me the link. I'll follow. (Or as we say here in the South: "Ain't Skeered" :cool: )

I haven't read Ian Murray, but as I'll be using "Scripture Alone" then I guess I won't have to...


[Edited on 1-9-2005 by VERITAS]
 
Just reading along Andrew and came to this:

Jews in Israel today come from a mix of different ethnic backgrounds, no doubt. I believe some are indeed ethnic Jews and others are not.

But think about the magnitude of what you are saying: for there to be one, single solitary ETHNIC Jew would mean that this supposed Jew has a pedigree rivalling that of Christ. He would OF NECESSITY have to be able to PROVE his ancestry. This is my whole contention. To say that you believe that there are indeed "some...ethnic Jews" means that their ethnicity is IDENTIFIABLE. That they are "pure-breds" without admixture. That Israelite men married only Israelite women for 4 millennia! Because THAT is what defines ethnicity, that is how the Law defined the parameters of marriage for the children of Israel.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
In cultural terms, the Jews of today hold to a heritage that hearkens back to Abraham, whether or not they are literal descendants of Abraham (again, I believe some are and some are not). They are united by that heritage. They are also united by their experiences of persecution in the last two thousand years. Their claim to the land, then, predates the Arab claim. The Arabs have never had a Biblical claim to the land; the Jews did at one point. They came back and settled there.

Do you see what you are doing? You are IDENTIFYING ancient Jews with modern Jews. The "heritage" of today's Jews is based largely on Talmudic and Kabbalistic mysticism and not on that transmitted by the patriarchs. Modern Jews don't even know how ancient Hebrew was spoken. It was a dead language for about 2000 yrs and had to be "revived" by Eliezar Pearlman (aka Ben Yehuda). Do you know for instance what the ancient Hebrew word was for "bicycle" or how about "ice-cream"?

And what does "united by their experiences of persecution" have to do with a claim to the land that pre-dates the Arab claim?!? For it to "pre-date" the Arab claim would mean that there would have to be a CONTINUAL, UNBROKEN LINE of Jewish descendants - whether biologically related to Abraham or not. Just produce one example for me. Just one unbroken Jewish family's claim to the land pre-dating the settlement of that area by the Arabs.

Who cares if the Arabs never had a "Biblical" claim to the land? The Jews never had an UNCONDITIONAL, ETERNAL claim to the land. God warned them that if they broke covenant then He would remove them from the land just as He was removing those who previously inhabited it. You say "the Jews did at one point" and that "THEY came back and settled there" but that is to presuppose that the "they" are one and the same people.

I am descended from the Scottish Gordons who once inhabited a certain castle in Scotland. Do you think they'll let me move in tomorrow? I have another ancestor who was French, do you think that the people now squatting on his land will freely return it to me - his direct American descendant? And what of your Huguenot ancestry, do you think that will gain you any undisputed territory in that land of your forefathers?

Modern Jews are NØT the ancient people of God who inhabited the land. They are not their descendants. They don't know who their ancestors were beyond a few generations (much like the rest of us). They are simply a religious group seeking a piece of land much like the Mormons of Utah.
 
Let us not despise the Jews of today, and act like highminded Gentiles (Pauls warns us about this in Romans 11.1-32) but rather pray that they will be moved by the spirit of God to forsake Judaism and instead put their faith in the true Messiah who reigns from heaven even now.

I am all for praying for the conversion of Jews and Muslims alike, but I also believe that we are enjoined by the Scripture to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor 10:5) It is by this means and this means alone that "have divine power to demolish strongholds." (2 Cor 10:4)

Judaism is just such a stronghold. We should use every argument in our arsenal to demolish their Godless pretensions. One of those pretensions is their heredity and thus a Divine claim to "the land of their fathers." For the Christian theological pretensions should outweigh national and political advantages - whatever nation we reside in. Our Kingdom is a heavenly kingdom (2 Tim 4:18), not of this world (John 18:36). To skip merrily along and support the big lie of Judaism for political gain is not to speak truth to the nations, but rather to found our security on political alliances.

In Him,
--C
 
Cheri,

Apparently, you can only view the Jews in terms of ethnicity and not religion. However, in the Old Testament, this was not so. Converts to Judaism from other races were permitted because it is a religious group, not just a club in which only blood relations are admitted. I am not saying the people who live in modern day Israel are all physically descended from Abraham -- perhaps most are not. But they are part of the Jewish faith and therefore bound spiritually to the Jews who preceded them for millennia. Their connection is one of spiritual unbelief, but it is a valid connection nevertheless. They do not have a binding Biblical claim to the land of Israel today, but as a group they had one at one time. They came back to the land in peace and were met with the sword. Why do you defend Arab Muslims who hate the Jews? Why is the Arab claim to the land morally superior to the Jewish claim? As someone else on this board pointed out in a separate thread on this subject, the Arabs were given a state in 1947 by the UN -- it is called Jordan. Blame the Jordanians and Egyptians for not letting the Palestinian refugees into their countries. Don't blame Israel. Israel pleaded with the refugees to come back in 1948 and they wouldn't.

I have said all this not in the hope of convincing you to change your mind, but rather for those that are reading this thread that they may see an explanation for supporting Israel for non-dispensational reasons. It is not about "Israel right or wrong" but against adopting a blind moral equivalency between the admittedly unbelieving but nevertheless honorable Jews and the godless barbaric terroristic Muslims.

I don't really intend to continue this debate. I am not interested in debating a woman, frankly. I don't know where you are coming from and your comments about eschatology show that you seem to be very confused about a lot of things. I don't mean to be harsh but in your case a little knowledge seems like a dangerous thing. I wish you well.
 
I've heard this before but I'm inclined to believe the modern Jews ARE the physical descendents of Abraham. The ten northern tribes were assimilated, Benjamin and Judah returned from captivity. By the time of Christ, Jews were dispersed all over the Roman Empire for various reasons (despite proclamations against emigration by the prophets Jer 42, 43). Was Christ really a Jew? After the Jewish war the rest were slowly scattered all over the world. The Torah and especially the Talmud strongly oppose miscegenation with the Goyim, though obviously they did mingle with proselytes. For 2000 years they've been unwelcome guests in Christendom. Living at our expense yet refusing to relent with their abhorrent religious practices and sectarian and supremacists mentality. We have a pretty good record of their history. The Khazars did not convert to Judaism until the 8th century, long after the dispertion. After the fall of the Khazar kingdom most moved to Russia and the Ukraine and they adopted a slavic language and presumably culture. Eventually Yiddish immigrants outnumbered and assimilated them. When exactly did these imposter Jews take over? All the various ethnicities of Jews have been proven to share some Israelite ancestry through gentic testing.

Khazars: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/07-Jews-As-Nation/section-5.html
Genetics: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Cheri, Apparently, you can only view the Jews in terms of ethnicity and not religion. However, in the Old Testament, this was not so. Converts to Judaism from other races were permitted because it is a religious group, not just a club in which only blood relations are admitted.

No, I'm not saying that I can "ONLY view the Jews in terms of ethnicity." I'm saying that I view all MODERN Jews strictly in terms of religion precisely because they cannot prove an ethnic connection to Abraham. As you know the term Jew is derived from the tribe of Judah, a son of Jacob and great-grandson of Abraham, and therefore was originally an ETHNIC distinction. This distinction ceased to be valid because of the sin of intermarriage among the nations.

The Bible knows nothing of "races" only ethnic (i.e. family) groups that divided into and became various nations. Sure there were whole people groups who aligned themselves with Israel and settled within her borders, some even who chose to follow her God, so I guess you could call them "converts" in that sense but this was rare and not typical but this in no way changed the prohibition against intermarriage among the nations. Nor did it change the ETHNICTIY of the Israelites or the converts. These people groups - even though they were to inherit land in the tribal area in which they settled - were still referred to as "strangers and aliens". They were not permitted to reign over Israel (Deut 17:15) nor were they allowed to join the priesthood, but they could be charged interest (Deut 23:20).

Which brings me to another interesting thing about modern Israel - viz, inheritance of the land. Israel's land was to be divided equally among the tribes with a double portion going to Joseph. If Jews wish to live in Palestine today based upon some supposed connection to Abraham and the tribes of Israel then let them present their pedigree to determine what area they are allowed to immigrate/settle in. Presumably "converts" would have to report to the prince of the tribe to receive an "inheritance" among the children.

Being a member of the Old Covenant WAS a sort of club in which only blood relatives were naturally admitted. This is why the theme of inheritance runs throughout the Bible. The Mosaic Covenant was made with the FAMILY of Abraham.


"You ONLY have I known of all the FAMILIES of the earth..." --Amos 3:2
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I am not saying the people who live in modern day Israel are all physically descended from Abraham -- perhaps most are not. But they are part of the Jewish faith and therefore bound spiritually to the Jews who preceded them for millennia. Their connection is one of spiritual unbelief, but it is a valid connection nevertheless. They do not have a binding Biblical claim to the land of Israel today, but as a group they had one at one time. They came back to the land in peace and were met with the sword.

This makes absolutely no sense. Ok, so ancient apostate Jews and modern Jews share a godless system of unbelief. How does that make a "valid" connection between the two?

valid
Pronunciation: 'va-l&d
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French valide, from Medieval Latin validus, from Latin, strong, from valEre
1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3 : appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>
4 of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

You are still saying "as a group" these two ethnically distinct people groups are one and the same based on a godless "spiritual" connection. And it is only your bias that says that the Zionists came "back" to the land (to come back one must have been there previously) "in peace." Ask the native Arab population living there at the time if it was "in peace."

The fact of the matter is that the native Arab population has always allowed Jews and Christians to live in the land in peace albeit subject to heavy taxation.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
It is not about "Israel right or wrong" but against adopting a blind moral equivalency between the admittedly unbelieving but nevertheless honorable Jews and the godless barbaric terroristic Muslims.

I hope you're kidding. What makes the godless barbaric terrorist Jews "honorable" and not the Muslims? Both religious groups are without God. Do you think that the Jews will have a comfy, cooler place in Hell than the Muslims? And what of your Arab brethren who are Christian and not Muslim, should they just roll over and give up their 1400 yr history in the land simply because you believe that modern Jews have more of a spiritual claim to the land!?!

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I don't really intend to continue this debate. I am not interested in debating a woman, frankly. I don't know where you are coming from and your comments about eschatology show that you seem to be very confused about a lot of things. I don't mean to be harsh but in your case a little knowledge seems like a dangerous thing. I wish you well.

That's very charitable Andrew. Is it that being a woman I'm not fit to debate?

I understand that what I'm saying may be quite new to someone who has never considered the implications of their beliefs, and I'm not intentionally tried to run rough-shod over you. If you don't understand where I'm coming from then please feel free to ask me to elaborate. No one on here has asked me to support my positon that Israel was required by law not to intermarry. No one has suggested that we study the nature of "conversion" or descent in the Old Covenant. And I'm not particularly interested in either the history of the Middle East or who lives in the land. My interest is strictly theological.

But I would ask you as a professed brother in Christ to enlighten me where my knowledge is error. In fact, I am requiring it of you:
"ALWAYS be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Pet 3:15) That way, "speaking the Truth in love we will in all things grow up into Him who is The Head - that is Christ."

Don't just "wish [me] well" and then ride off into the sunset. That would be like telling me to "be warm" without giving me a blanket or "be filled" without giving me food (James 2:16).

I bear thee no animosity and I doth not intend to make thee an offender for a word.
"Am I therefore become thy enemy because I tell thee the truth?" (Gal 4:16)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top