Posted on 04/28/2011 2:49:15 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
And he fullfilled it 2000 years ago.
So, the Jews of today are not the chosen people any more?
No. That all ended when they killed their Messaiah. “We have no king but Caesar” was an irrevocible decision. Now there are only Christians (”There is no Jew, there is no Greek”) and the damned. And which side of that line one chooses determines their eternity. Choose wisely.
Where in hell did you come up with that? And why do you believe that God has somehow reneged on an eternal covenant he made with Abraham and Israel?
Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. They shall be My people, and I will be their God; then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. Yes, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will assuredly plant them in this land, with all My heart and with all My soul.’
Jeremiah 32:37-41
God fullfilled all his promises to the Jews.
What part of “everlasting covenant” do you not understand?
Cronos: While you're responding to OPC's and other of their ilk, what about this co-religionist of yours?
And for the record, it was the Romans who put Jesus on the cross, not the Jews.
Christ fullfilled that covenant. Christ was always the fullfillment of the unconditional promise.
And for the record, Jesus said those who delivered him to the Romans had the "greater sin".
You know darn well that “Christian” Zionism has nothing to do with traditional Christianity. If Americans support Israel for geopolitical reasons that is one thing, but there is no Christian moral imperitive to intervene in religious disputes between Muslims and Jews. Both these religions reject Jesus as the Messiah and share the same dietary rules.
"Would that they were Noachides!"
Dispensationalists, some of them, sure keep some odd company, for a supposedly Christian school of thought.
Maybe it isn't chr*stian. Maybe Fundamentalist Protestantism isn't chr*stian. Maybe that's the wrong word.
Maybe they're "Biblical."
After all, why does any Protestant believe in chr*stianity in the first place? Only because "the bible says so," correct? Isn't J*sus ultimately just another biblical character--the most important one, perhaps, but owing his claims and his authority to nothing other than Biblical assertions?
The "old testament" is a lot longer than the "new." It covers a lot more history. The "new testament" is but a snapshot of the church's birth; the "old" describes the world from the day it was created until the end of the First Exile. Catholics and Orthodox have two thousand years of history to look to for heroes and for systems of how the world should work. Fundamentalist Protestants have the "old testament."
Now . . . just how much critical thought does it take to simply consider the possibility that the "new testament" may not be what it claims to be . . . maybe it doesn't belong, maybe it was added by men? Fundamentalist Protestants have no trouble whatsoever dismissing the Apocrypha or the "book of mormon" . . . isn't it just an application of that same logic to judge the "new testament" by the "old" that preceded it . . . and find it wanting?
Dispensationalist-type Protestants are drawn to the Jews and Judaism by their Biblical sentimentalism. One wonders where the sentiment of supersessionist Protestants (who reject the Hebrew Bible and the two thousand years of liturgical chr*stendom) draws them? They don't seem to have much of anything.
Chr*stianity is not self-evidently true. It is true only if it is authorized by the Biblical G-d. All it would take is a little critical thought, the ability to read the Hebrew Bible without the assumptions imported from the "new testament" (a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent").
But don't worry. I once had hopes that this would happen, but I have given up. The Dispensationalists, and all the other chr*stian Zionists, have a "new testament" in their bibles and they would no more question it than they would the first eleven chapters of Genesis. They don't know how it got there; they don't care how it got there. All they know is it's there, and that settles it. So unfortunately, my friend, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Would that it weren't so!
Christians are the new covenant people of God.
"But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Peter 2:9)
For the sake of the old covenant, the official policy of traditional Christianity toward Judaism is toleration, beyond that extended toward Muslims or pagans. However, there is no traditional Christian endorsement of post-messianic Jewish religion, since Christ is the sole means of salvation. Christians are under no obligation to take sides in external religious disputes among Muslims, Jews, or pagans.
Mlizzy, I'm also pinging you, because you seem to know a lot about Voris.
“there is no Christian moral imperitive to intervene in religious disputes between Muslims and Jews.”
Christians should not intervene in “disputes” between terrorists and their innocent victims?
The video sounds like a solid presentation of Catholic doctrine.
Intervening in this case would be protecting a victim against an aggressor, not favoring one non-Christian religion over another.
Thanks for the ping, but Voris himself does a great job of answering questions in his commentary section of his YouTube. Take a look-see. :)
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.