The hatred of Jews
- Thread starter Susanna
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hey Friend. Many groups have the blood of Abraham, including the Arabs. That's not what's in contention. The question is whether or not they have the blood of Jacob and more specifically the blood of the man Judah.
When we set aside the scriptures anyone can claim the name "Jew". But the scriptures along with supporting evidence don't support the claim of the present group currently in control of the land. Let's just reason through your quoted statement above.
90% of today's Jews are identified as Ashkenazi (German), with the rest a mix of Sephardic, Mizrahi, etc...Scripture says they would be scattered into every nation. Let's grant you for argument's sake that they mixed/married into every nation. The distribution wouldn't be so slanted to have 90% of the TOTAL group comprise only a European ethnos (Ashkenaz) while 10% comprise the rest. The math doesn't math.
Secondly, scripture says (Hos 1:10-11) that even with them scattered into all nations their numbers would be as the sands of the sea too numerous to count. Presently, those identified as modern Jews make up only 0.2% of the global population. They're literally one of the smallest ethnic groups alive numbering only 14 million, the size of the State of New Jersey in the USA.
Ok, let's go back in time to the first century. During Judea's conflict with Rome which direction do you think the Jews would've migrated to escape persecution? I've marked where Rome and Israel are.
Here's a map of the roman empire...
The forces of Rome would travel south into Judea (even crossing the Mediterranean Sea). To flee to safety would Jews travel north towards the enemy?
I don't think they would willingly travel north into the enemy's hands. They likely fled in every other direction except north.
Now notice that Isaiah 11 says the Messiah will regather the remnant of His people from the very areas they likely fled to when Rome began attacking them.
Isaiah 11:11
In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.
Now to be fair, Syria is north of Judea so the Messiah will gather a portion of His remnant from the north, but remember the northern house of Israel was exiled into the Assyrian empire and never returned. So the remnant He's gathering from the north is from the Northern house, not the Southern house. So the remnant of Israel that He gathers from the north (Syria) won't be called "Jews".
The crux of the matter is, do we believe scripture is accurate (i.e., The Messiah will regather the remnant specifically from the nations mentioned), or do we believe it's "poetic" and open to interpretation as long as the gist of the prophecy is communication (i.e., The Messiah will regather the remnant from wherever they are at present)? I happen to believe scripture is more accurate than interpretive.
There's a LOT to unpack here.
Firstly, it is critically important to understand that there was no such religion as Judaism in the O.T. Said in another way, the Old Testament IS NOT Judaism. The religion of Judaism is younger than Christianity by a few years.
After 70AD two groups identifying themselves as Jews stayed in the land with one group thinking of themselves as purer Jews than the other group who were excited about The Messiah. These were the Pharisees. Persecuting the Christian Jews wasn't effective. They eventually traveled east to Babylon, codified their traditions into the Babylonian Talmud (yes the very traditions that Messiah said negated God's law), and then traveled north past the Caucus Mountains spreading their religion of Talmudism and converting Europeans to their faith. Eventually, Talmudism was rebranded as Judaism to compete with Christianity and Islam as an Abrahamic faith.
More on the Pharisees in a bit...
Question: Can someone change their ethnicity through religious conversion? Sure, we say "spiritually" there is a change (for instance we say we are born again into a new family under the second Adam. We also say we are Jews inwardly with a circumcision of the heart), but physically/externally do we become a new ethnicity? The answer is no.
So no one who has converted to the Jewish religion ethnically becomes a descendant of the man Judah. And yet this is one of the established rules of that religion. If a European woman converts to the religion, children born to her from then on are considered ethnically Jewish regardless of their actual ethnic heritage. That is a miracle. But there is no provision in scripture about heritage or pedigree being reckoned through the woman except for The Messiah. Otherwise, it always follows the man/father because the man carries the 'Yod'; the Y chromosome breathed into him from The Father ("Adam...made in the image of God"). When that religion reckons heritage through the woman that religion is attempting to copy/imitate the miracle of Messiah's birth.
...and because their actual ethnicity never changed German DNA will always tie the same group of European people together with common ancestry, but were their mothers converts to the religion? We need to compare their DNA with the bones of the ancient Middle East.
An excerpt from the scientific paper: The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish
An excerpt from the article: Ashkenazic Jews’ mysterious origins unravelled by scientists thanks to ancient DNA
...Yeah so plenty of reasons to believe they are not the remnant, not to mention that Messiah Himself is supposed to regather them.
Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan
[Again, disclaimer: we are talking about the group who's currently trampling Jerusalem and hurting people. Those who believe in and follow Christ are new creatures and heirs to the promises regardless of their claimed heritage.]
When we set aside the scriptures anyone can claim the name "Jew". But the scriptures along with supporting evidence don't support the claim of the present group currently in control of the land. Let's just reason through your quoted statement above.
90% of today's Jews are identified as Ashkenazi (German), with the rest a mix of Sephardic, Mizrahi, etc...Scripture says they would be scattered into every nation. Let's grant you for argument's sake that they mixed/married into every nation. The distribution wouldn't be so slanted to have 90% of the TOTAL group comprise only a European ethnos (Ashkenaz) while 10% comprise the rest. The math doesn't math.
Secondly, scripture says (Hos 1:10-11) that even with them scattered into all nations their numbers would be as the sands of the sea too numerous to count. Presently, those identified as modern Jews make up only 0.2% of the global population. They're literally one of the smallest ethnic groups alive numbering only 14 million, the size of the State of New Jersey in the USA.
Ok, let's go back in time to the first century. During Judea's conflict with Rome which direction do you think the Jews would've migrated to escape persecution? I've marked where Rome and Israel are.
Here's a map of the roman empire...
The forces of Rome would travel south into Judea (even crossing the Mediterranean Sea). To flee to safety would Jews travel north towards the enemy?
I don't think they would willingly travel north into the enemy's hands. They likely fled in every other direction except north.
Now notice that Isaiah 11 says the Messiah will regather the remnant of His people from the very areas they likely fled to when Rome began attacking them.
Isaiah 11:11
In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.
Now to be fair, Syria is north of Judea so the Messiah will gather a portion of His remnant from the north, but remember the northern house of Israel was exiled into the Assyrian empire and never returned. So the remnant He's gathering from the north is from the Northern house, not the Southern house. So the remnant of Israel that He gathers from the north (Syria) won't be called "Jews".
The crux of the matter is, do we believe scripture is accurate (i.e., The Messiah will regather the remnant specifically from the nations mentioned), or do we believe it's "poetic" and open to interpretation as long as the gist of the prophecy is communication (i.e., The Messiah will regather the remnant from wherever they are at present)? I happen to believe scripture is more accurate than interpretive.
There's a LOT to unpack here.
Firstly, it is critically important to understand that there was no such religion as Judaism in the O.T. Said in another way, the Old Testament IS NOT Judaism. The religion of Judaism is younger than Christianity by a few years.
After 70AD two groups identifying themselves as Jews stayed in the land with one group thinking of themselves as purer Jews than the other group who were excited about The Messiah. These were the Pharisees. Persecuting the Christian Jews wasn't effective. They eventually traveled east to Babylon, codified their traditions into the Babylonian Talmud (yes the very traditions that Messiah said negated God's law), and then traveled north past the Caucus Mountains spreading their religion of Talmudism and converting Europeans to their faith. Eventually, Talmudism was rebranded as Judaism to compete with Christianity and Islam as an Abrahamic faith.
More on the Pharisees in a bit...
Question: Can someone change their ethnicity through religious conversion? Sure, we say "spiritually" there is a change (for instance we say we are born again into a new family under the second Adam. We also say we are Jews inwardly with a circumcision of the heart), but physically/externally do we become a new ethnicity? The answer is no.
So no one who has converted to the Jewish religion ethnically becomes a descendant of the man Judah. And yet this is one of the established rules of that religion. If a European woman converts to the religion, children born to her from then on are considered ethnically Jewish regardless of their actual ethnic heritage. That is a miracle. But there is no provision in scripture about heritage or pedigree being reckoned through the woman except for The Messiah. Otherwise, it always follows the man/father because the man carries the 'Yod'; the Y chromosome breathed into him from The Father ("Adam...made in the image of God"). When that religion reckons heritage through the woman that religion is attempting to copy/imitate the miracle of Messiah's birth.
...and because their actual ethnicity never changed German DNA will always tie the same group of European people together with common ancestry, but were their mothers converts to the religion? We need to compare their DNA with the bones of the ancient Middle East.
An excerpt from the scientific paper: The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish
An excerpt from the article: Ashkenazic Jews’ mysterious origins unravelled by scientists thanks to ancient DNA
...Yeah so plenty of reasons to believe they are not the remnant, not to mention that Messiah Himself is supposed to regather them.
Revelation 2:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan
[Again, disclaimer: we are talking about the group who's currently trampling Jerusalem and hurting people. Those who believe in and follow Christ are new creatures and heirs to the promises regardless of their claimed heritage.]
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I have not personally verified everything that he has said in his posts that I have read - but, I am quite certain about this one thing - long before he ever said it on CC (I learned it many years ago from other sources.) - the current [political] "state" of Israel came into existence as an illuminati agenda milestone.
It would probably help you to know and understand the true origin/history/meaning of the "star of david" emblem/symbol.
Just because the word 'Zion' is in the Bible does not mean that the modern 'zionist' movement is biblically legitimate.
It would probably help you to know and understand the true origin/history/meaning of the "star of david" emblem/symbol.
Just because the word 'Zion' is in the Bible does not mean that the modern 'zionist' movement is biblically legitimate.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Not a fact. This is what you say. This what you believe.
I don't see the Bible as hatred. I seek the Lord's guidance daily. I believe everyone of us should read the Bible daily, and seek His guidance daily. I find it to be a necessity.
Hatred? lol What I see in this world is hatred coming from the Zionists and it's sickening.
I don't see the Bible as hatred. I seek the Lord's guidance daily. I believe everyone of us should read the Bible daily, and seek His guidance daily. I find it to be a necessity.
Hatred? lol What I see in this world is hatred coming from the Zionists and it's sickening.
-
2
- Show all
By focusing on this chapter only, you are deliberately ignoring an earlier chapter of Romans. Scripture must be read in whole, else heresies do develop. Christians are true Jews, through Christ Jesus, just as the Old Testament saints were saved (not this doesn't replace anybody - it allows all to enter God's kingdom, through Jesus Christ, who is the narrow gate).
Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
This is called a straw man argument. The only ones talking about replacement are those saying that the current occupiers of the Rothschild-created state of Israel replace the Church whom God has called "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light".
Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
This is called a straw man argument. The only ones talking about replacement are those saying that the current occupiers of the Rothschild-created state of Israel replace the Church whom God has called "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light".
-
2
-
1
- Show all
No, I'm sorry. Your feeling about something doesn't make it fact. I didn't just come to this belief yesterday. I have studied the Word, I have read history. I have read both sides of the issue. There is such a thing as fact. I know people don't like to hear that, but it's true,whether you believe it or not doesn't change history and it sure doesn't change the Bible. BTW Liberal news and comedian guy, Bill Maher, spoke on this subject yesterday on his show. He is totally liberal and an atheist. So you don't need to believe the Bible to understand this situation.
Then please read these passages again and be willing to put your own opinions aside and ask God if you could possibly be wrong.
What specifically do you see as sickening coming from the Jews? The Jews didn't attack anyone, they were the ones attacked. I don't understand what you are talking about.
Then please read these passages again and be willing to put your own opinions aside and ask God if you could possibly be wrong.
What specifically do you see as sickening coming from the Jews? The Jews didn't attack anyone, they were the ones attacked. I don't understand what you are talking about.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
What you are explaining is called Replacement Theology. It's simply wrong. Romans 11 is talking to whom? You can't get past Romans 11.
Right, you're not saved just because you are Jewish. But God says He can and will restore a remnant, of Jews, and we do not take their place. God will keep His promises to them and the church. Salvation was to the Jew first, then the Gentiles. We were grafted in. And told not to boast because God can and will restore them. You can't get past Romans 11. It's talking to the Jew, not the church.
Right, you're not saved just because you are Jewish. But God says He can and will restore a remnant, of Jews, and we do not take their place. God will keep His promises to them and the church. Salvation was to the Jew first, then the Gentiles. We were grafted in. And told not to boast because God can and will restore them. You can't get past Romans 11. It's talking to the Jew, not the church.
@CarriePie, I don't see anything I said here as funny.
The entire thing isn't funny. But I chuckle, because this just keeps going around and around. It has been explained here numerous times. Moses has done an admirable and superior job of explaining it. HeIsHere and Yahshua also have very informed posts. I feel blessed to have been able to read them all! What could I say that they haven't already said so well, and they've done an amazing job of it!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
This made me laugh.
A paraphrase would be "Your opinion is wrong because my opinion is right?" The pot calling the kettle black, perhaps? Wrong and funny. Carrie Pie kindly focused on the funny side. I didn't want to send you a wrong message about your circular logic so I gave my traditional red X, but your post was funny also. Thank you!
You yourself admitted that both Catholic and Protestant churches "repented of [this belief] after the Holocaust". This is incorrect. For a start, there are many Protestant churches, and certainly, not all of them, which saw no need to repent of a crime that isn't - Christian theology never caused any holocaust, although the current Zionist theology is certainly causing a holocaust of Palestinians and Lebanese (and perhaps unwilling Israeli soldiers?) in the Middle East today. It threatens to ignite the whole of the Middle East in blood and fire. Why don't you care about all holocausts equally?
Secondly, there have been a plethora of churches repenting of all manner of correct doctrines the past 70 or 80 years, from a belief in the triune God, to the idea that homosexuality is a sin, and even to the idea that men can't become women or vice versa. The repentance of a rebellious or deceived church for believing scripture has no bearing on the truth of what scripture clearly teaches, which remains the same.
A paraphrase would be "Your opinion is wrong because my opinion is right?" The pot calling the kettle black, perhaps? Wrong and funny. Carrie Pie kindly focused on the funny side. I didn't want to send you a wrong message about your circular logic so I gave my traditional red X, but your post was funny also. Thank you!
You yourself admitted that both Catholic and Protestant churches "repented of [this belief] after the Holocaust". This is incorrect. For a start, there are many Protestant churches, and certainly, not all of them, which saw no need to repent of a crime that isn't - Christian theology never caused any holocaust, although the current Zionist theology is certainly causing a holocaust of Palestinians and Lebanese (and perhaps unwilling Israeli soldiers?) in the Middle East today. It threatens to ignite the whole of the Middle East in blood and fire. Why don't you care about all holocausts equally?
Secondly, there have been a plethora of churches repenting of all manner of correct doctrines the past 70 or 80 years, from a belief in the triune God, to the idea that homosexuality is a sin, and even to the idea that men can't become women or vice versa. The repentance of a rebellious or deceived church for believing scripture has no bearing on the truth of what scripture clearly teaches, which remains the same.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well the issue is they haven't gotten past step one. Neither have you it seems. God made an unconditional and everlasting covenant with Abraham, a land promise was part of that. So unless all of you can explain how the words unconditional and everlasting mean something different, you haven't explained anything. Mo is ignoring Romans 11, you can't get past it. He hasn't, no one can.
If you think the focus of the scriptures are about a land promise to Abraham, you've missed the mark. God was talking to Abraham about Jesus - "through you all nations on Earth will be blessed". Jesus is the fulfillment of God's covenant with Abraham, and those in Christ Jesus - whether Jew or Gentile - inherit all God's promises to Abraham in Christ. If that includes a land promise for us, all the better, but the land shouldn't be our focus - Christ Jesus should.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
In the decades after the Holocaust, many Christian communions undertook a full-scale reevaluation of this “teaching of contempt,” (Replacement Theology) as it had come to be called. Finding it incompatible with their core convictions, many eventually issued formal statements of renunciation and clarification. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the “Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church,” issued by the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in 1985:
We must in any case rid ourselves of the traditional idea of a people punished, preserved as a living argument for Christian apologetic. It remains a chosen people, “the pure olive on which were grafted the branches of the wild olive which are the gentiles” (John Paul II, 6th March, 1982, alluding to Rom[ans] 11:17–24). We must remember how much the balance of relations between Jews and Christians over two thousand years has been negative. We must remind ourselves how the permanence of Israel is accompanied by a continuous spiritual fecundity, in the rabbinical period, in the Middle Ages and in modern times, taking its start from a patrimony which we long shared, so much so that “the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised still today, can greatly help us to understand better certain aspects of the life of the Church” (John Paul II, March 6, 1982).
Similarly, in 1987 the Presbyterian Church (USA), again quoting from the 11th chapter of Paul’s Letter to the Romans in the New Testament, bluntly proclaimed that “Christians have not replaced Jews” and repudiated without qualification what it acknowledges as “the church’s long and deep complicity in the proliferation of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions through its ‘teaching of contempt’ for the Jews.” Other Protestant denominations have done likewise.
As I said to you and @Carrie, I didn't come by this belief without reading the Bible,and history to gain understanding. There are such things as facts and you were wrong, as both statements above prove.
No but false Christian theology certainly did. How did 6 million Jewish deaths under the Holocaust occurr in Christian Europe? How did followers of Jesus Christ, a Jewish Messiah, allow such evil to take place around them? Why did the majority of Protestant and Catholic churches fail the Jews?
The Nazis were particularly enamored of Luther’s 1543 work, “On The Jews And Their Lies.”.. Luther was not always anti-Semitic, he came to hate Jews after they refused to convert en masse to Christianity.
In November 1933, the Nazis marked the 450th anniversary of Luther’s birth with a nationwide “German Luther Day.” Party leaders praised Luther’s “ethno-nationalist mission,” and called their movement “the completion of the German Reformation in the Third Reich.”
Nazi propagandists also celebrated the fact that the infamous Kristallnacht night of violence against Jews in 1938 fell over Luther’s birthday.
Martin Luther kept his Anti-Semitic Catholic beliefs and preached Replacement Theology and hatred of the Jews, which led to the Holocaust. It wasn't the first time in history the Jews had to wear an insignia to identify themselves, it wasn't the first time in ghettos. It was the Catholics who started that years before Nazis ever thought about it.
We agree God doesn't change, and He keeps His promises. Everlasting and unconditional means what it says.
@ThereRoseaLamb - you keep saying that God will not break His promises - I do not believe anyone disagrees - we all know God will keep His promises. However, what you refuse to hear (it seems) - and understand - is that 1948 is NOT the center-focal-point of [any of] His promises concerning Israel - they are yet to be fulfilled. Christ Jesus Himself will fulfill the dry bones prophecy. He will raise them up again as a nation in fulfillment of biblical prophecy - after He returns at the Second Coming of Christ. All of the land that God promised - that is yet future also. Nothing that occurred in 1948 has fulfilled any of the promises of God to Israel as you believe it has - this is what you need to understand.
There is nothing wrong with "unconditional and everlasting" - only, the point in time from which it "begins" simply has not arrived yet.
You are wrapping your interpretation of scripture around an incorrect version of historical events [that you wish to believe].
Please answer a question for me - simple answer - 'Yes' or 'No' - do you believe the dry bones prophecy has been fulfilled?
'Yes' or 'No' (Or, 'I do not know' if you really do not know what you believe about the fulfillment of the dry bones prophecy.)
There is nothing wrong with "unconditional and everlasting" - only, the point in time from which it "begins" simply has not arrived yet.
You are wrapping your interpretation of scripture around an incorrect version of historical events [that you wish to believe].
Please answer a question for me - simple answer - 'Yes' or 'No' - do you believe the dry bones prophecy has been fulfilled?
'Yes' or 'No' (Or, 'I do not know' if you really do not know what you believe about the fulfillment of the dry bones prophecy.)
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Aha. The old "taking-out-of-context trick" slight of hand. You said (highlighting mine):
So I replied:Now you reply with the below, but instead of accepting that your claim was incorrect, or at the least, inaccurate or misleading, you say that because I was wrong in this (when your admission shows clearly that it was your claim that was wrong), I must therefore be mistaken on what you falsely claim to be "replacement theology". Big difference between "many Christian communions" and both Catholic and Protestant churches, implying all of them. Many communions claiming to be Christian also believe outright heresy. It doesn't make these beliefs correct, and these congregations don't speak on behalf of all of Christendom. So you were wrong about that "fact", just as you are wrong about your Church replacement theology.
-
2
- Show all
When the Catholic church speaks, it speaks for all. The pope also apologized to the Jews aside from what was in the post. Protestants don't have a collective like Catholics do as you well know. But they still came out and denounced and apologized for the Replacement Theology teaching. You said that was incorrect. You were wrong. There is nothing misleading or any trickery in what I said. I get you believe you can't be wrong Mo, but you are. Both sides rejected the teaching with a formal statement.
-
1
-
1
- Show all