Posted on 01/03/2006 9:34:40 AM PST by Esther Ruth
Vatican Says Jerusalem "Issue" is Too Important to Leave to Israel, PA 19:15 Jan 03, '06 / 3 Tevet 5766
(IsraelNN.com) The legal counsel of the Vatican in Israel, the priest David Jaeger, said today that Jerusalem is too important of an "issue" to be left to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Jaeger further expressed criticism of Israeli policy regarding holy sites in the country.
"The issue of Jerusalem," the representative of the Roman Catholic Church said, "is to important to leave in the hands of the Israelis and the Palestinians."
The Catholic Church has been making efforts to obtain historical sites in Jerusalem of late, but without public successes.
Let's see your degree in Theology, who are YOU, to determine what it means? I don't think you were there....
Nah, why don't you just quote whatever part you think is relevant to the conversation--I could as well say, "Read the book of Exodus and get back to me."
Amen, brother. "To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this it is because there is no light in them". The Church needs to have binding and loosing power as it pertains to applying the Holy Scriptures to new challenges. But the moment they decide that they have the power to change "times and Law", they invalidate themselves.
I've read many of your posts and find you to be a very bright light here on FR. What is your definition of "replacement theology".
When you are reduced to sheer ad hominem, you've lost the debate.
Thank you very much for saying so.
What is your definition of "replacement theology".
It is the false belief that either God has transferred all of Israel's promises to the Church (while, conveniently putting all of the curses for disobedience upon the Jews) or that "Israel" is more an idea than an actual nation (defined by bood, culture, and history) and that the natural Jewish branches were ripped out wholesale and replaced with ingrafted Gentile ones.
The true understanding is that while the unbelieving Jewish branches were broken off so that some of the Gentiles might be grafted in, they were not "replaced" by those Gentile branches. Rather, we Gentiles have been adopted into God's greater family, not to replace the natural children, but so that the family might be even larger, since it is God's promise that the day will come when the natural branches are grafted back into their natural tree:
Behold then the kindness, and the severity of God; on those having fallen, severity; but on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the natural wild olive tree , and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree ; how much more these being according to nature will be grafted into their own olive-tree?andFor I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, lest you should be wise within yourselves; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations has comes in. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written,
There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For this is My covenant with them, when I have taken away their sins.Indeed as regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes. But as regards the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the free gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
(Rom. 11:22-29)
. . . if their slipping away is the riches of the world, and their default is the riches of the nations, how much more their fullness? . . . For if their casting away is the reconciling of the world, what is the reception except life from the dead? (vv. 12, 15)It therefore behooves us to love our brothers, even those who are currently out of fellowship with the Father and the firstborn Son, rather than lord it over them.
It also behooves us to not try to change the household rules to suit ourselves. That the Father has not placed them as a burdensome prerequisite to adoption is a demonstration of His love for us, not an indication that the rules themselves have changed.
I suspect that you and I are in essential agreement on the majors, even if we dicker around a bit on the minors.
I haven't lost, just lost interest. You refuse to believe in the authority of the Ancient Church, nor of the 7 Ecumenical & Holy Councils, that established the most basic beliefs in Christianity.
As the scripture says: "Cast not your pearls before swine......."
The "Ancient Church's" authority stops where the Scripture draws the line--and as soon as a church sees fit to ignore the least letter of the Bible, their authority is lost because they are no longer operating under their proper authority.
Tell me, did Yeshua argue from the authority of the rabbis (and they did have the authority to bind and loose, per Deu. 16:18ff), or from the Word of God? Go and do likewise.
I'm an ordained minister (are you?) whose studies are ongoing, but that's frankly irrelevant. Only what the Bible says matters, and the Bible is quite clear on these issues--if it were not, you would have countered me from the Scriptures rather than trying to hide behind a wordy and less-authoritative ecumenical council.
And that is EXACTLY your problem. The Ecumenical Councils hold the same authority as scripture. I would be willing to bet you are 7th Day Adventist or some other similar group. Talk about no credibility. My Church, the one and only original (accept NO substitutes) has been here from the BEGINNING!
Funny how the Pharisees claimed that for their traditions, and yet Yeshua never had a problem with shooting said traditions down where they conflicted with the Word of God.
I would be willing to bet you are 7th Day Adventist or some other similar group.
I am Messianic, as you would know if you clicked on my FR Homepage or followed the link I sent in post 197.
Talk about no credibility
Again with the ad hominems, thus demonstrating your lack of any coherant Biblical argument.
My Church, the one and only original (accept NO substitutes) has been here from the BEGINNING!
So claim the Catholics. Of course, the original Church was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox--it was Jewish and Torah-observant, so you're both wrong.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The recipe is both faith and obedience, belief in Jesus demonstrated by obedience to the Father. Of course the promise went first to the Hebrews and second to the Gentiles. We Gentiles are joining the Hebrew faith when we get Baptized. The Bible is one coherent Book from Genesis to Revelation, IMO. If you interpret "replacement" to exclude Jews who accept Jesus, I believe you are in error. If you interpret "replacement" to mean that the Law died with Christ, I believe you are in error, too.
I suspect that you and I are in essential agreement on the majors, even if we dicker around a bit on the minors.
Yes, indeed, but you would be much more eloquent than I.
In layman's terms, I do not think the battle of Armaggeddeon is going to take place in the middle east as a physical battle.
Rev 16:16 And he gathered them into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon (Har-Meggidon).
I have read that Mount Carmel borders the valley of Har Meggidon. That was where Elija told the people 1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came to all the people and said, How long are you limping over two opinions? If Jehovah is God, follow Him. But if Baal is God, then follow him. And the people did not answer him a word.
I believe the battle for the end is a battle over hearts and minds and all the fuss over the middle east is a ruse perpetuated by Satan to fool as many as possible into believing in him instead of God.
I will officially change my address to "1 lunatic fringe way" now.
In layman's terms, I do not think the battle of Armaggeddeon is going to take place in the middle east as a physical battle. . . I believe the battle for the end is a battle over hearts and minds and all the fuss over the middle east is a ruse perpetuated by Satan to fool as many as possible into believing in him instead of God.
I think it's both--one of the things I've learned is that the existence of a spiritual meaning does not necessarily aborogate the existence of the physical aspect.
Then get thee hence.....
To . . .
I ain't no fool. Me debating you on theology would be about as one sided as that John Edwards/ Dick Cheney debate a couple years ago :) Besides, as far as I can tell, we are on the same team.
Besides, my beef is with the apostasy types. Like Tex here, who wants his religion to be vindicated by scripture sooooo badly, but the second there is a conflict, he starts screaming things like "ecumenical council" and "church fathers". I wish for once one of these guys would just admit that they believe church tradition trumps scripture and be done with it. And then there are the dispensationalists who say the Law died on the cross, but still maintain literal Israel has a place in the end times. Both cannot be true simultaneously and their logic is generally as linear as a pretzel.
FRegards Brother,
I can't seem to remember......who won that one?
I wish for once one of these guys would just admit that they believe church tradition trumps scripture and be done with it
You will never see this happen as this admission would destroy their theology.
FReegards, and God bless.
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.