Posted on 05/17/2015 8:32:04 AM PDT by firebrand
Fueled by wire stories from AP and AFP, the mainstream media have been running with a headline that Pope Francis . . . called Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas "an angel of peace."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishpress.com ...
That's kind of specious considering that any attempt to extend Israel's boundaries to the Biblical/Halakhic ones would be loudly opposed by the Vatican and by many Catholics.
Not only that, but Israel is supposed to be a Messianic monarchy, not a social democracy/secular state. So it is dubious as to whether the State of Israel is the true Israel of the Prophets.
That is all perfectly true. However, I hope you are aware that it is because this State of Israel is a social democracy/secular state that there is freedom of religion there. The Messianic Kingdom will be Theocratic and have no more "religious freedom" than it did under Joshua, the Judges, or the Monarchy.
At least, that's what a number of the most religiously observant Jews believe: you can read more about that Here (Haredi Jews and Zionism)
Again, this is perfectly true, but the true context of this position is often missed. Many anti-Zionist non-Jews believe that anti-Zionist Charedim are opposed to the e--vil conspiracy to rule the world (which is what they imagine Zionism to be). In actual fact, secular Zionism is merely another romantic nineteenth century secular nationalism and has absolutely no pretensions or goals of "ruling the world" (but try getting that through an anti-Zionist non-Jew's head!). Far from this being the case, anti-Zionist Charedim actually reject secular Zionism in part because it isn't the Messianic state that will rule the world under Mashiach. In other words, it is the anti-Zionist Charedim, not the Zionists, who actually want to "rule the world," as correctly understood.
I am in general a supporter of Israel as a nation and I am not aligned with any of the sides of this religious dispute. So if you care to respond, don't refute my position (I don't have one) but deal with the Haredi Rabbis.
And that is one huge reason that I left the Catholic Church. Catholics (including yourself) believe that a Jewish state in 'Eretz Yisra'el is of absolutely no theological portent whatsoever. You really regard a Jewish state in the Holy Land as no different than any other state in the world . . . or than the Arabs who invented the phony "palestinian" idea as a lying propaganda weapon to destroy it?
Catholics are also completely neutral about the truth of Genesis, Esther, Daniel, and Jonah, which fits together nicely with being completely neutral about any ingathering of Jews to Israel.
For people who boast of having "written" and "preserved" the Bible, you not only don't have an atom of Biblical sentimentalism among you, but don't even seem to be able to understand it at all.
“Just to be clear: do you think that the social-democratic non-Messianic secular state of Israel is the Israel of the Prophets?”
Do you study God’s word? If you do you would know that the whole of Israel does not become Messianic until Christ returns.
If so, then weren’t the original Zionists themselves very much in disobedience when they first accepted as the 1948 borders of Israel significantly less than “from the Nile (which is mainly modern Egypt and Sudan) to the Euphrates” (modern-day Iraq).”
“That is, it should comprise parts what is today Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, part of Asian Turkey, and of course all of Israel, including Gaza and the West Bank.”
I am not completely following you on this. How would they be in disobedience when God stated that after they were scattered to the nations He would bring them back into His land? At no time have the Jews encompassed the whole of what God set aside as His. Can you show me where God cited them for being disobedient because of this?
” So it seems arguable (I am not taking this position, but it is arguable) that present-day Israel is no more “the legitimate Israel” than is any other land in that region. Some of the Haredi say that present-day Israel is apostate and must fall, and the true Israel will be a Messianic Monarchy whose law under halachic law based on the Torah.
I am not at all sure that your position is more religiously legitimate than that of the Haredi. You are referring to the same Scriptures (”what God has commanded”) but reaching strikingly different conclusions.”
You omit one fact. The Haredi are waiting on Messiah and do not read the New Testament while considering Isaiah to not be describing Yeshua. The Messianic Jews read both Old and New Testaments embracing Yeshua as the Messiah. They see Israel as legitimate, as the God that brought them back makes them legitimate. You are confusing men’s words with God’s words, again. Humanism.
Non Messianic Jews look at God’s word with one eye closed. Christians that don’t understand God’s commands (especially concerning His Mo’edim and Calendar) also look at His word with one eye closed.
Messianic Jews, and many Arab Christians, see with both eyes open. It is God fulfilling His promises and proving to the world that He is the One True God through the Jews.
Now, if you are going to tell me that the Disciples were Catholic... :-)
See post #42
Thank you for the civil conversation. I did not want to get into the weeds since in my mind this is a “God-said” vs “man-said” issue, but having some knowledge of modern Judism may I say one thing about the Haredi? They are Rabbinical Jews similar to all modern Jews. Their learning is not based on individual Torah reading, but on the Talmid and other Rabbinical teaching books.
For short, so please don’t take umbrage on missing facts, in the first century after Yeshua’s resurrection, Judaism split with some going to build Rabbinical Judism and some to build Christanity. The history is facsinating and more than one could study in a lifetime.
He may read them, but for Rome
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
The specious Roman reasoning behind such is that since (according to her) God is the author of both Scripture and the doctrines of Rome, then there can be contradictions.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Let us know if any want to get off the merry-go-round.
So first it is geography and polity, and now it is morality that justifies breaking the command not to sell or divide the land from applying to Israel today, but which is based on a fundamental fallacy. For the commands apply regardless, and breaking them adds to that of others, such as abortion.
Since Israel also did not have a valid Levitical priesthood when the modern state was founded, nor does it have this now, then you can eliminate the regathering and founding of the state of Israel as being a work of God and fulfillment of prophecy.
However, God did not choose Israel because of their merit, nor does God love natural Israel and promise a future repentance to the remaining descendants because of their obedience, but because they are beloved for the Father's sake.
Yes, this is why Yeshua was so upset with the Pharisees, Sadducee and Sanhedrin. They had made man’s laws above God’s laws.
It is human nature. Then and now. God’s word stands perfect and true. Then and now.
Our differences about the application of the Torah to present-day political, social and military policy are probably too extensive to discuss fruitfully. If there were a Davidic King there might (might) by some justification for territorial revanchism. But I don't think that will happen until Jesus comes again.
And like Rome, the Scribes and Pharisees disallowed anyone having authority apart from them, and yet the church began in dissent from them.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
But this is not a matter of "rights," but it is a matter of obedience to God. Israel never realized all the land given to it, yet it was and is under obligation to keep that which it has obtained, regardless of its geographic/moral/theological deviations.
To fail to do so simply adds to their transgressions.
Even in the time of Christ and afterwards and despite their geographic/moral/theological deviations,the physical descendents of Abraham, Israel after the flesh, the natural branches, were regarded by God as a distinct body of people, and accountable to keep the commands of God. Rabbis excuse their lack of a sacrificial system by invoking the lack of the temple etc, but they are still bound to obey that command, as they are to keep the land God has quite obviously restored to them.
Moreover, as a distinct body of people the natural branches will all (what is left of them) turn to the Lord at the end, after the fulness of the Gentiles have been saved, and until then the Lord will not return. I hope you concur with that much.
A pastor may not have all the sheep God willed for him to feed, but he is obligated to keep and care for the ones he has have in the faith, as much as they are able.
If there were a Davidic King there might (might) by some justification for territorial revanchism. But I don't think that will happen until Jesus comes again.
Though Rome wrongly rejects the millennial reign of Christ, it is quite apparent that this is what is predicted, including the extensive detailed description of the future temple, (Ezek. 37ff) which is not the same as the blueprint under David.
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.