Posted on 12/01/2010 2:24:01 PM PST by Amerisrael
In a seemingly unprecedented move, a group of Amish Christians from the US made widespread use of modern technology - including airplanes, tour buses and even iPhones - in order to come to Israel and apologize to the Jews.
The Amish are most notable to outsiders for their shunning of the technological conveniences that have made life so fast-paced for everyone else. But they did not shy away from using whatever means necessary to accomplish what they viewed as the vitally important task of making things right between their community and Israel.
The Amish, both in the US and Europe, have a long history of anti-Semitism and have traditionally been firm proponents of Replacement Theology, which claims that God cast aside the Jews for their widespread rejection of Jesus as their messiah. Many Amish once believed the Nazi Holocaust was God’s punishment for that rejection of Jesus, and actually applauded Hitler.
“We are here to say we are sorry,” group leader Ben Girod told Israel’s Channel 2 News as the group visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem. “God reminded me that this is not who He is. We no longer want to reject you or look at you as not being God’s people. You were God’s people long before we were.”
(Excerpt) Read more at israeltoday.co.il ...
Wooden literalism takes that statement as a fact, or actually an absolute promise. A LOT of parents of wayward offspring have suffered a tremendous amount of guilt from such an interpretation...thinking that if their child as an adult has chosen to walk away from the Lord, this verse is stating unequivocally it is THEIR fault.
I know that Quix was quoting another in their objection to "wooden literalism."
Consistency in child-rearing for the cause of Christ's glory, and teaching children that God has FIRST CALL AND FIRST CHOICE on their futures (friendships, worship, marriage, career, service, and life & death themselves), is what makes Proverbs 22:6 operate in the children's lives when they become adults.
This is the standard of God (reading the entire book of Proverbs), and when children go wayward it is because that standard was not determined to be kept consistently. I speak as a father of seven.
When Christian parents, from the outset and from the heart and will, say, "That verse is absolute, true, and the standard of God," and then seek God to fulfill it in the lives of their children . . . I can testify in the rearing of seven children . . . that verse WORKS LITERALLY, not "wooden"ly, but more like an IRON RAIL.
Selective Service eyes women's draft
The proposal would also require registration of critical skills
By ERIC ROSENBERG SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.
The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.
The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.
"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials.
Brodsky and Richard Flahavan, the agency's director of public and congressional affairs, reviewed the six-page proposal with Pentagon officials responsible for personnel issues. They included Charles Abell, principal deputy undersecretary for personnel and readiness, and William Carr, deputy undersecretary for military personnel policy.
The agency officials acknowledged that they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress, which ultimately would have to authorize such a step.
Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, based in Arlington, Va., said that the Pentagon has taken no action on the proposal to expand draft registration.
"These ideas were only being floated for Department of Defense consideration," Amon said. He described the proposal as "food for thought" for contingency planning.
Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, said the Pentagon "has not agreed to, nor even suggested, a change to Selective Service's current missions."
Nonetheless, Flahavan said the agency has begun designing procedures for a targeted registration and draft of people with computer and language skills, in case military officials and Congress authorize it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say they oppose a revival of the military draft, last used in 1973 as the American commitment in Vietnam waned, beginning the era of the all-volunteer force.
Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975 but was resumed in 1980 by President Carter after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men, ages 18 to 25, currently are registered with the Selective Service.
"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld said last month.
At present, the Selective Service is authorized to register only young men and they are not required to inform the government about any professional skills. Separately, the agency has in place a special registration system to draft health care personnel in more than 60 specialties into the military if necessary in a crisis.
Some of the skill areas where the armed forces are facing "critical shortages" include linguists and computer specialists, the agency said. Americans would then be required to regularly update the agency on their skills until they reach age 35.
Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill would list the skill in which they have the greatest degree of competency.
------------------------------------------
[John Leland 1789]
May 17, 2005
SUBJECT: SELECTIVE SERVICE/DRAFT/ETC. FOR FEMALES (AND OUR SONS)
Dear Elected Representatives
This letter concerns my children and selective service and any possible future draft for military service:
First, I have attached an article entitled Selective Service eyes women’s draft, by Eric Rosemberg, Seattle Post—Intelligencer Washington Bureau. Please read that article and respond. This letter expresses our position, and asks for your assistance for future use, please.
We have four daughters, ages 25, 20, 8 and 3. We are independent Bible-literalist Baptists. We not only believe that women should not serve in combat roles, but we believe that our older women are to teach our younger women “to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands [or fathers, if single], that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (New Testament, Titus 2:3:5; 1 Corinthians 7:25-40; etc.)
We stand opposed to American women being required to register for selective service, and we are asking you to oppose this in your official capacity.
Summarily, we firmly hold:
1. Our women are not to serve in combat; 2. Our women are to be subject to their own husbands (or fathers, if single); 3. Our women are in violation of the Scriptures to serve under the headship of other men, or even other women outside of the home; 4. Our women, therefore, are not to serve in either military service or in alternative forms of service that are not under the direct headship of their own husbands (or fathers, if single).
According to the Selective Service Administration’s Internet web site, Conscientious Objector (CO) status would require an alternative form of service. And we see that there is talk of requiring the registration of females for selective service. So, we request your assistance in providing a way for us to establish Conscientious Objector (CO) status for our women, which would also allow exemption from any alternative form of service that is not under the direct headship of (obedience to) their own husbands (or fathers, if single), thus allowing them to practice, and not compromise, their Biblical Christian Faith.
We realize that you will think, “Why worry about this now, since there is not yet a requirement for females to register?” The operative words, however, are “not yet.” We, nonetheless, must presently consider the possibility of such registration being made a requirement at some point prior to our 3 year-old becoming a 34 year-old. And that leaves 31 years to the possibility of our daughter, __________, being “required” to register. That still leaves 26 years to the possibility of our daughter, ___________, being “required” to register. That leaves 14 years to the possibility of our daughter, ____________, being “required” to register. That leaves 9 years to the possibility of our daughter, ____________, being “required” to register.
Now, let me mention also that I have two sons, ages 28 and 13. We stand opposed to any re-instatement of a military draft. We are opposed to our sons serving in the regular armed forces for the following reasons:
1. If our sons serve in today’s US armed forces, they will likely be forced to serve with females, and if they progress through military rank, they will most likely have to serve over females, who should, Biblically, be only under the headship of, and obedient to, their own husbands.
2. If our sons serve in today’s US armed forces, they will, in all likelihood, be forced to serve among females who live indiscreet and unchaste lives, increasing temptation to evil, or be forced to tacitly condone (merely turn the head from) wicked and immoral behavior. (I can say this as an eyewitness, having served in the regular US Air Force from 1973 to 1979, and as having served as an non-commissioned officer in security police squadrons and civil engineering structural shops where there were female airmen serving under my supervision).
3. If our sons serve in today’s US armed Forces, they will, in all likelihood, be forced to serve with sodomites (some people call them homosexuals), as any stand against sodomites in the armed forces has all but disintegrated.
You should understand that we are not opposed to taking up arms to defend our nation. Even our women are encouraged to be proficient in firearms, and to be willing to fire at any enemy “through the kitchen window” if necessary. We are willing to fight and even to give up our lives in the defense of our beloved County. Our objections are very specific regarding the affects that females serving in the armed forces (or in alternative forms of service) have upon our Christian homes and families. Our objections involve the affect of current policy on the morality of our sons as well. We view current anti-Biblical social policy, as it is imposed in our military ranks, to be very threatening to the spiritual and moral wellbeing of our young people.
We firmly believe that our Nation’s ills during these generations are directly attributable to our surrendering up of Biblical Christian standards and convictions in our homes, in our places of work and in our government. It is evident to us that the God of our fathers is withdrawing His great hand of protection and blessing to the same degree that we ignore and shun His words in the Scriptures. Those of us who still believe the Bible literally as our final authority are now the ones looked at as odd and unreasonable. Nevertheless, our convictions, in the matters presented herein, and all other issues shall remain of the Bible-literalist position.
We anxiously await your reply, and your action on this matter.
Respectfully,
[John Leland 1789]
Cc: US President George W. Bush Cc: US Senator Richard Lugar Cc: US Senator Evan Bayh Cc: US Congressman Mike Sodrel Cc: US Selective Service Administration Cc: US Secretary of Defense Donald Romsfeld
------------------------------
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM National Headquarters/Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425 http://www.sss.gov
July 18, 2005
Dear [John Leland 1789]:
This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 2005, opposing reinstatement of any military draft, the registration and conscription of females, and endorsing conscientious objector status for females. Notwithstanding what the media are claiming or what alarming statements are found on the Internet, here are the facts.
Both President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have indicated more than once that there is no need to reinstate conscription (a draft). There has not been a draft in over 32 years. Rather than maintain large conscripted Armed Forces, the national military strategy calls for an all-volunteer force of active duty personnel, reinforced with volunteer National Guard and Reserves, and backed up further by the Selective Service System with peacetime registration of 18-year-old males. This tiered approach to national security is supported by the Department of Defense, the U.S. Congress, the public, and America’s young men.
To reestablish a future draft, the Congress would have to amend the Military Selective Service Act and the President would have to sign the proposed legislation. Thus, any change in present national policy would involve both the Legislative and the Executive Branches of the Federal Government. There is no consensus in the Congress to reinstate any type of draft.
You express your concern that women are about to be included in the Federal registration requirement and will be included in any future draft. The facts are that only males are subject to the draft. This policy might be considered discriminatory by some, but it is mandated by law and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Historically, the Congress has never included women in past military drafts. Current law refers specifically to “male persons” who must register and be subject to a draft. In order for women to be included, Congress would have to change the Military Selective Service Act. When President Carter reinstated the registration requirement in 1980, the Senate maintained a System which excludes women from the draft. The matter was never brought to a vote in the House. After registration was reinstated in 1980, the question of whether women should be required to register was tested in the courts. A Supreme Court decision on June 25, 1981, held that registering men only did not violate the due process clause of the Constitution. In 1994, President Clinton directed the Department of Defense to conduct a review of existing policies regarding conscription, including the question of whether women should be required to register. It was determined then that because existing policy excludes women from front-line ground combat assignments, that it is still not necessary to register or draft women. There is no consensus in the Congress to amend the law to include women in either registration or a future draft.
Finally, under the Military Selective Service Act, classification as a conscientious objector (CO) can only be made by a Selective Service Local Board; there is no provision for a self-designation. Further, classifications would only take place if a draft were underway because presently there are no active draft boards in existence or any type of claim being decided. However, upon reinstatement of a draft, all individuals who receive a notice to report for induction have an opportunity at that time to file a claim for reclassification, postponement, or exemption, to include conscientious objection. Our boards are made up of individual volunteers who are nominated by the State Governor and appointed by the Director of Selective Service on behalf of the President. These uncompensated civilian men and women are from the area covered by the board and are reflective ethnically of the geographic region they serve. The document that describes all claims and the procedures to file for each, our Information for Registration booklet can be found at , under publications and then under registration materials.
Thank you for your views. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs at the above address. Our telephone number is (703) 605-4100.
Sincerely, (signed) Richard S. Flahavan Associate Director for Public & Intergovernmental Affairs
-----------------------------------
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1404
July 20, 2005
Dear [John Leland 1789]:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the prospects for a military draft. I appreciate your thoughts and share your concerns.
As you may know, legislation regarding the possibility of a military draft was proposed in the 108th Congress. This legislation, H.R. 163 and titled The Universal National Service Act of 2003, would have required every citizen, and every other person residing in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26, to perform a two year period of national service unless exempted. This national service would be performed either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense.
H.R. 163 failed to pass in the House by a vote of 2-402. Companion legislation in the Senate, S. 89, never made it out of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. No new legislation of this type has been introduced in the 109th Congress.
You may be interested to know that in November 2001, Senator John McCain and I introduced the “Call to Service Act” in an attempt to harness the spirit and overwhelming patriotism of our citizens after September 11. This bill aimed to give concrete opportunities to countless Americans who were asking what they could give back to their country. Though the full legislation was never passed, President Bush did sign into law our “citizen soldier” option. This short-term military enlistment program enables volunteers to sign up for 18 months of service on active duty, followed by service in the Reserves and then either a period of availability in the Individual Ready Reserves or civilian service in AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps. I am proud of this accomplishment and even more proud of the American people that continue to serve the nation during these challenging times.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that the information I have provided is helpful. My website, http://bayh.senate,gov, can provide additional details about legislation and state projects, and you can also sign up to receive my monthly newsletter, The Bayh Bulletin, by clicking on the link at the top of my homepage. I value your input and hope you will continue to keep me informed of issues important to you.
Best wishes,
(Signed)
Evan Bayh United States Senator
EB/12
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Peter to an all Jewish audience in Acts 4:12)
See how Rev. Hagee denies this openly for yourself here: "Jesus did not come to the Earth to be the Messiah." I'm sorry, but listening to what he said, in context, is just plain heresy, period.
You can apply whatever interpretation you like, however King Solomon, and his original Jewish readers, did NOT take any proverb as an absolute truth, which is one reason the very book is called PROVERBS. The definition of the word "proverb" in English, (and in its Hebrew equivalent too) is A TRUISM...that is a wise saying with is USUALLY (but not always) true.
If you make it into something the authors...that is, Solomon, AND the Holy Spirit, never intended it to be, than you are making up your own meaning to scripture, and not taking God's Word for what it is--what He intended. Forcing our own meaning onto something that God intended otherwise is a form of idolatry.
I'm sure Job's friends may have quoted the proverb: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." (Prov. 16:18) or, "Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor." (Prov. 29:3) as don't these verses PROVE that Job's own sin brought him down?
No, they don't, as God Himself called Job righteous (Job 1:8), and God allowed Job to be brought low, for His own reasons, even as He judged Job's accusers.
Hebrew narrative, like the story of Job, or, Genesis, or I, II Kings (etc), is a genre the original authors (the writer, and the Holy Spirit) intended to be taken literally...so right interpreters do so.
Proverbs are called "proverbs" for a reason, and that is because the genre is that of a truism, a proverb.
And that truth inverted could be taken as, hey, did I do it right or not? With the answer obtained through observation of the kids and where they’re at in knowing, serving, and LOVING the Lord ... at least it would be something an honest parent would consider doing.
Wooden literalism takes that statement as a fact, or actually an absolute promise. A LOT of parents of wayward offspring have suffered a tremendous amount of guilt from such an interpretation...thinking that if their child as an adult has chosen to walk away from the Lord, this verse is stating unequivocally it is THEIR fault.
I have heard such rationalized UnBiblical tripe all my adult life. First from many Pastors and then from many psychologist colleagues and professors.
In 63 years of watching parenting closely and the results closely, I have
NEVER
SEEN
AN EXCEPTION to that Scripture.
I'm very sorry, dear Quix, that you must believe that God the Father Himself screwed up in raising (and actually creating) His son Adam, who though given everything, quickly sinned on his own, bringing us all down.
How disappointing it must be to you to realize that even God messes up....because, after all, that proverb is MORE than a proverb, and is an absolute truth (even though, of course, Solomon, and the Holy Spirit never intended it to be understood that way...since it is, after all, a proverb, in the book of PROVERBS.)
Anything to bring doubt on the Bible in the minds of those who have no heart intent to obey God. I know how it works.
You say, "A TRUISM...that is a wise saying with is USUALLY (but not always) true."
Millions of bible-believing Christians will enjoy the fruits of raising a godly family heritage. You are free to look for some linguistic explanation for other professing Christians to raise worldlings, if you like. I find those linguistic manipulations a ploy, and a trick of the devil, to lure people away from God's standards and to lower theeir estimation of the Bible.
Understanding God’s Word rightly is no trick of the devil—and I’m a firm believer in the inerrancy of scripture, and all the fundamentals of Christianity. Jesus is Lord, and I’ll gladly praise Him forever for that!
Knowing the basic common-sense fact that proverbs are, by their nature...proverbial, that is truisms, or maxims, is not exactly an advanced “literary manipulation.” It is taking God’s Word as it was written, not as how your proud heart would like it to be.
If your children are terrific, thank God for it, not yourself.
Don’t believe me about the word proverb? Lets see what Noah Webster said back in 1828:
PROV’ERB, n. [L. proverbium; pro and verbum, a word.]
1. A short sentence often repeated, expressing a well known truth or common fact, ascertained by experience or observation; a maxim of wisdom.
The proverb is true, that light gains make heavy purses, for light gains come often, great gains now and then.
2. A by-word; a name often repeated; and hence frequently, a reproach or object of contempt. Jer.24.
3. In Scripture, it sometimes signifies a moral sentence or maxim that is enigmatical; a dark saying of the wise that requires interpretation. Prov.1.
4. Proverbs, a canonical book of the Old Testament, containing a great variety of wise maxims, rich in practical truths and excellent rules for the conduct of all classes of men.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are all the proverbs in the book of Proverbs true? ABSOLUTELY. They are however true in the way they were written, by the writer, and the Holy Spirit, AS PROVERBS.
Does that mean thinking people understand other bible passages, which were written not as proverbs, but as literal history, not as literally true? Absolutely not—narrative passages are absolutely true, in a literal sense, as that is how, in Hebrew, and in English, language functions.
All I’m doing is applying common sense...if we tried to make every proverb into an absolute promise...(a way God never intended) we’ll distort scripture, and drive ourselves and others, nuts.
It's very sad that we must add the disclaimer that we are not anti-Semitic and we support Israel when we are merely preaching the Gospel as it has been declared for 2,000 years.
Dispensationalism is in the minority. And for a good reason. It denies the Kingship of Jesus Christ yesterday, today and tomorrow while pushing a political agenda masquerading as theology.
yes, and lest one is inclined to think that the Amish or the Mennonites are saintly sorts, consider that many are involved in drug trafficking, incest and rape and abuse of women and children is a plague among them, they run puppy mills and are known for their mistreatment of animals. Once again, it seems there’s this mentality of being born into Godliness as opposed to being born again. they should apologize, I guess to the Jews is as good as anyone
“The idea that the Messiah would be just a man, albeit one endowed with wisdom from Hashem, is actually relatively recent, and developed largely in response to Christian claims.”
“It’s true that you don’t find Deity directly ascribed to the Messiah in the Judaica, but there are plenty of references to a quasi-divine Messiah to go on.”
True.
And an example of that can be found in the Jewish Targums. The Targums are “Aramaic” interpretations of the Hebrew Tanakh.
An Aramaic interpretation being necessary because many Jews in Israel no longer understood Hebrew.
The article linked to below provides the historic background as to how Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the everyday language spoken for many Jews in Israel in the late post/exilic period.
Although discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls furnished evidence that Hebrew had not become an entirely “dead language” in Israel.
Just like many Jews in Israel today are bilingual, or even trilingual, so it was with many in Israel during the time of Yeshua [Jesus]. Many understood Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
But for many, Aramaic had become the normal everyday language.
What does this have to do with the subject raised concerning divinity of the Messiah? Plenty
Many, including Christians, have wrongly assumed that the Gospel of John was influenced by the Greek philosophy of an Alexandrian Jew named Philo because of the use of the Greek “logos”.
But “logos” is only how the Greek would normaly translate Aramaic “Memra”.
Remember, Aramaic had become the primary language for many Jews in Israel.
http://oneinmessiah.net/TargumMemraTheWordOfGod.htm
From the`Jewish Targums:
The Memra is God and is worshiped as such:
Gen. 28: [20] And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, [21] So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God:
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If the Word [Memra] of YHVH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Word [Memra] of Lord be my God.
Targum Onkelos on Gen. 28:20-21
Gen. 22: [14] And Abraham called the name of that place Yehovah-Yireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
And Abraham worshipped and prayed in the name of the Word [Memra] of YHVH, and said, “You are Lord who does see, but You cannot be seen.”
Jerusalem Targum Gen. 22:14
The Memra is God, yet is a separate personality from the Father and Holy Spirit:
And the Word [Memra] of the Lord caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gommorah, brimstone and fire from the Lord in heaven.
John was describing Yeshua [Jesus] as the divine “Memra”, or “Word” of the Lord.
The Gospel of John is from a Jewish perspective, a purely Jewish understanding of the divine “Word” , Memra of the Lord.
Not from Philo Greek philosophy.
I am Catholic. Dispensationalists would consider me a believer in "replacement theology," but I reject the term as begging the question.
I looked at your Dispensationalist links briefly. They confirm that John Darby originated the teaching of the rapture.
What is the legitimate continuation of the Old Testament religion?
Well i can see why the person, got angry with me as many folks in the jewish world do not enjoy Christian arrogance and our haughty belief we have the one true vision straight from Hashem
It is not necessarily haughty to believe in the singularity of truth. There are many questions for which there can only be one right answer. This principle is well understood in fields like carpentry and engineering. In theology it is supposedly intolerant to uphold the singularity of truth. In fact, there can only be one legitimate continuation of the Old Testament religion. Christianity and rabbinical Judaism are mutually exclusive.
I will refrain from using "G!D unless written so out of respect of HIS name in which I just love how my fellow Jews have taught me just how reverent HIS name is even they forgot HIS real name.
I can respect that but I am not wise enough to make distinctions that issue. I will follow the practice of the Fathers and Doctors as I confident their wisdom exceeds mine.
[Augustine]was wrong, horribly wrong in this as we can see to this day and look back and attest to so many murdered Jews and other Christians that diverted from his and others beliefs.
Jews have been more welcomed than any other non-Christian group in virtually every Christian society in history. Religious persecution certainly did occur, but Jews also took part in political and military struggles just like Christians and Muslims. If Jews were on the losing side, they suffered just like anybody else. That is not the same as religious persecution and cannot be blamed on Christian beliefs. Whatever the case, truth is the only valid measure of a doctrine. If that truth is alleged to cause suffering, there needs be some other remedy besides embracing falsehood. Did not Augustine follow along with previously established teaching?
The New Testament teaches that Christianity is the sole continuation and that Jewish nonbelievers are cut off.
Whoa there cowboy. Martin Luther also had words about replacement theology as did many. many popes
All Christianity universally understood that the New Testament taught that Christianity is the sole legitimate continuation of the OT religion. This includes the successors and close associates of the NT writers. It is absurd to second guess these interpretations 1800 years after the fact. I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings, but that is secondary consideration to defending Christian Tradition.
Why? I ask you are not all peoples, Jews also, heathen and pagan cut off as per the new testament?
Gentile pagans were never a part of God's people so there is no occasion for cutting them off.
there is no inheritance of land for Christian's.
The Christian inheritance is eternal life in the Kingdom (of Heaven).
Congrats on your support of Israel.
Re Hagee
1. I am not and have not been inside Hagee’s head or heart.
2. I respect his long tradition of supporting Israel and the Gospel and basic doctrines of the faith of Jesus The Christ, The Messiah. He certainly believes Jesus is The Messiah of Scripture.
3. The most plausible explanation to me, is that he wanted to emphasize that the first coming was as suffering Servant and the next coming overtly in clouds of glory to set up His Kingdom—WHEN THE ISRAELITES WILL SEE HIM WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED—WILL *THEN* BE AS CONQUERING KING, MESSIAH.
4. I don’t blame him for wanting to make such a distinction. He likely could have done it in a more fittingly kosher way without so much conflict.
We have never accused you of being a non-Christian. Even though you proclaim that Jesus isn't enough, but that racial decent is the key element for laying claim to God's blessings. Even though you proclaim that Jesus isn't Lord -- at least, not now, at least not yet. Even though you proclaim that the finished work of Jesus on Calvary was not good enough, but that animal sacrifices in a rebuilt temple must be initiated.
Even though you endeavor to separate what God has joined together, the one new man in Christ, composed of all who through the faith of Abraham enter into all the covenantal blessings of faithful Israel. Even though you call us to rebuild the wall of partition that God has broken down.
You are one of probably less than 2-5 dozen sets of parents whom I know of in 63 years of closely watching, learning of thousands of parents--who've done it quite successfully, quite Biblically, quite rightly. CONGRATS.
It might be as few as a dozen sets of parents across 3 continents--though, like you & Dr E--some other successful FREEPER parents may boost it above a dozen. I didn't keep a literal log.
Of course, a psychologist tends to see some of the worst professionally. However, I also viewed a huge cross section in daily life in church, shopping, craft classes etc. And, I would persistently ask questions about family, children, parenting etc. in all those settings virtually whenever I could get away with it.
VERY EXCELLENT.
THX.
. . . there is no inheritance of land for Christian's. We're less than the Jew in the diaspora. We are not of this world as Jesus said He was not of this world. The only promise of land Hashem wrote in HIS WORD are the verses I gave you above. There are more of the same but Jesus never promised Christians a worldly inheritance, except to take up the cross and to follow Him. if we are to truly do that, then we must lovingly conquer, not with swords( save when in war) the hearts of man through HIS WORD via HIS SPIRIT. So, I guess if you mean anything more or less than that then I don't understand you nor the continuous inferences of John Darby.
imho, Darby is a huge pack of fantasized straw dogs. The garbage about Darby on FR from that perspective is virtually always inaccurate, false, even, seemingly often, a lie from hell.
I laughingly look at all I've written trying to be honest with you but we have strayed so far from the incredible blessing the Amish did by shunning their way of life, flying to Israel and apologizing to the main rabbbi at the Wall. may Hashem bless them for Hashem has said HE will bless those who stand by Abraham and his seed, and that's what they've done.
If only more churches, more of the body of Christ could show by the Amish incredible humbling example of love to Jews we just might have the strenght and power here on earth to conquer Islam and all the lies of this world. But alas, I fear only Hashem in His return will be able to fix this broken world. Until that time we have been given our marching orders.Mt 28:17-20
. . .
Last part of question:"What is the legitimate continuation of the Old Testament religion? The New Testament, inclusion of that is the continuation of the Book of Acts to this day.
There will come a time very soon in which the dispensation of the church is over, and Hashem will deal once again directly through His people and the Messiah( Meleckh Mesiach) will return for Christians or come for the first time for the Jews. This is a serious question both for Jews and Christians alike and it is debated continuously. Some rabbi's believe in two in one, there is a Lamb of Hashem, and there is the conquering King of Kings, they are one and the same. Of course most Jews true to the religion call these Rabbi's nuts, not all but the majority. Again as I said to the other poster, I am NOT versed enough to debate fully on many Jewish subjects and this one creates more division than it does find common ground but it's wothwhile to read up and use this in later debates
Very excellent. I thoroughly agree. Thanks enormously.
Have often pondered this grafted in business in light of ultimate ruling and reigning with Christ.
I would not be at all surprised for some, many Christians to have land given them within the ultimate land of Israel. Whether that would be on the basis of some degree if Jewish DNA or strictly spiritual grafted in assignments, I couldn't guess. I just expect it.
However, I agree that the only PROMISE SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED ABOUT THE LAND--IS ONLY TO JEWS.
Folks seem to gloss over God's promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that their children shall number as the sands of the sea. The assumption seems to be that THAT 'MERELY' means a lot of kids.
WRONG! That's a low view of God's WORD.
God's WORD--powerful enough to create all that is--is not weak about literal fulfillment to the nth degree.
My image is that ALL CREATION from the subatomic level on up would 'strain'--if it took that--TO FULFILL EVERY PARTICLE OF GOD'S WORD. It would not matter, imho, TO CREATION, per se, whether God 'intended' it as a parable, or not. GOD SAID IT. That would be enough.
Anyway--Jacob's kids--numbering as the sands of the sea. Where ya gonna house em in even the New Jerusalem? Where they gonna work? How many acres would the freeways consume? We gonna have condensed mansions to fit them all in? Nonsense.
ALL CREATION GROANS EAGERLY, EXPECTANTLY, YEARNINGLY, DESPERATELY SEEKING the manifestation of THE SONS OF GOD. imho, That's us. Jewish AND Christian believers at that future time.
RULING AND REIGNING WITH CHRIST.
Over what? This boot camp of a planet?
There's not enough room.
Number as the sands of the sea. THAT'S JUST THE CHIEFS. Doesn't begin to calculate the Indians.
imho, the 'Indians' must number in the incalculable QUADZILLIONS TIMES QUADZILLIONS. . . . OUT THERE . . . somewhere . . . all over . . .
The idea that RULING AND REIGNING WITH CHIRST over this tired old--even renewed old boot camp of a planet IS ALL THERE IS to be . . . is an insult to Christ and to God's Creation.
That kind of God is TOO small.
GOD IS INHERENTLY MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THAT. INHERENTLY.
I don't understand what distinctions will likely remain between us grafted in vs the blood children of Jacob. If the Old Testament pattern of adoption is any clue, there mostly won't be any distinction. We will be accounted as full fledged blood brothers.
Yet, it appears that there's 12 thrones for the Patriarchs and 12 thrones for the Disciples. That IMPLIES some distinction remaining. Perhaps it's more of a ceremonial distinction kind of signifying a spiritual heritage--kind of like the war medals of Admirals.
Paul makes it very very clear--for those with eyes to see and ears to hear--that Gentiles are GRAFTED INl--Johnny come latelys to the party. And, Paul and John make it abundantly clear that at a given point in still future time, before time is lain aside as irrelevant--that the TIMES OF THE GENTILES WILL BE . . . drum roll . . .
Deal with it, Gentiles. That's SCRIPTURE.
From then on, the primary ruling perspective will be from the top--THE JEWISH MESSIAH ON DOWN. Thankfully, we can then also see HIM as our Jewish Father, Lord God, Messiah--as the GRAFTED IN ISRAELITES.
If there's any distinction for us--it would be as Jews-lite not them as Gentiles/Christians-lite.
Amen ! Brother.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
INDEED!
Thank you for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ!
You missed my point entirely. Those who prepared the meals Peter shared with Gentiles are not likely to have provided kosher service. At Cornelius' household, scripture explicitly describes Peter eating non-kosher food at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and direction of an angel.
So then, it is your claim that Paul was a hypocrite, pretending to be observant only around Jews but hanging out with the prostitutes when he hung out with the Gentiles. Because really, that's what you're accusing him of.
It is you who accuse Paul. I do not see anything wrong with him reasserting his status as Pharisee or going to the Temple. The Apostles did not immediately cut themselves off from all Mosaic law. They did deemphasize the law, and not only for Gentiles.
What makes you think that the corrupt successors of the Apostles would keep their offices in God's eyes for one minute more?
Bishops that pass along what they receive were not corrupt. Bishops that adopt novelty and heresy are condemned.
Not until the Messiah came--Eternal. This promise is reiterated in Jer. 33:18-22. When was the last time you honored a Cohen? Indeed, you have claimed that there is no eternal Levitial priesthood and called heretics those that trust the Word of God.
How would the imperfect animal sacrifices continue to please God after the perfect sacrifice has been made?
Heb 10:1 "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."
Why? Because all too well you annul the Word of God for your (relatively young and novel) tradition.
You are accusing either me, Christian Tradition, or the Apostles. The Holy Spirit inspired the Apostles to establish the Church according to God's will. Mosaic law was not permanent but provisional until the coming of Christ:
Galatians 3:19 "Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise"
And Gentilizing Jews is the exact same sin played the other way. Out of your own mouth you condemn yourself.
The Church is infallibly guided in her legislation by the Paraclete. The refugees from Goshen adopted laws given to them by God. Converts who accept the laws of the Church bow not to Gentiles, but to God.
And that is why so few Jews believe in Yeshua--because you have misrepresented Him. It wasn't enough for you to say, "I don't think that X, Y, and Z apply to me as a Gentile." That might be acceptable. I can make the case, for example, from the Torah that kosher is not incumbent on Gentiles. But the moment that you claimed the authority to interpret the Apostles in such a way as to draw aside Jews out of the way that the Eternal God commanded us to walk, you sinned against the Word and against the Jews. If there is a heretic here, it is the one who claims that Yeshua is not enough for the salvation of the Jews, but that it takes Yeshua plus ceasing to be a Jew and becoming a Gentile. That is another "gospel," and let any who preach it, even an angel from Heaven, be anathema.
Again, I do not make the rules. You are putting the cart before the horse. If the Church is false, then you should cut all ties and be done with her. If the Church is true, then you must submit to her despite ties you have with anything else.
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.