The hatred of Jews

[cv5]

If you actually believe this to be the case.....then how can you rightly say that YOU are Jewish?

You HAVE stated very clearly that you are of Jewish stock....correct?
And now that you are a believer, you are a "true Jew". Correct?

And another thing: if you demand that a Jew cannot be properly defined or accurately determined since the destruction of the Temple,
then there has not been a "true Jew" since 70AD.

Yup. No "true Jews" today. Not you, not anybody. Never going to happen. Ever. Impossible.

Frankly I am shocked that nobody else has picked up on this ridiculous absurdity that you speak of.
But then again, good detectives are hard to find on this thread.

Hellooooo @Moses_Young @HeIsHere @GaryA

Do any of you enjoy a game of chess once in a while?
Well, what you have witnessed is yet ANOTHER checkmate.

Only the latest of many.
Do you perceive this to be the case? Probably, as I hear no cogent rebuttals.
Do you desire to admit your error? Unlikely to say the least.

Here is an example of "checkmate". You know, backed into a corner with no escape.

Luk 20:44
David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

=================================================================

BTW @HeIsHere , your assertions that DNA studies proving something or other about present day Jews in the land NOT in fact being
legitimate sons of Jacob MUST be equally applied to @Moses_Young as well, see as we are 2000 years past the 70AD destruction of all Jewish family records. Are you willing to admit that?

Or is @Moses_Young a special case where somehow YOU KNOW that he can absolutely PROVE that he is a "true Jew" of the lineage of Jacob?

Whoops......

 

[cv5]

I have my doubts about reaching a consensus because it requires accepting certain historical facts that some of us aren't willing to accept. However, I'm willing to try.

The following is an interview of Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro by The Palestine Pod, a podcast created and hosted by two Jewish people.

I figure the most definitive...erm...definition of Zionism is best heard from the mouths of the people it supposedly was created for.

DISCLAIMER: He is speaking from the perspective of a Jewish Rabbi (follower of Judaism), not a Christian scholar. Also, I am only referencing certain portions of this interview and do not blindly endorse his full perspective on all matters they address.

Supercut of his full position in the first minute of the video:

"Zionism is its own religion..."


His definition of Zionism:

14:52-19:44 - "Nationalism is another name for Zionism; Jewish Nationalism...[Zionism says] 'You are not a people enjoined by god to fulfill this religion, these religious laws. You are a nation'...But instead of creating a new nationality out of nothing...[the zionists erased] Jewish identity. 'We're going to take their history, change it a bit. We're going to take their self-image; take Jewishness'...They revised all of Jewish history. They had this nonsense [idea] that Jews for thousands of years were looking for national self-determination, which is not true. We were looking for a messianic renewal of the world...[We were never praying for the] Jerusalem we have today, [rather] a Jerusalem that's governed by a resurrected king David...where the wolf lays down with the lamb..."

He continues by explaining from his perspective that being a Jew isn't a nationality or ethnicity but an identity defined by a religion, which - from his perspective - is accurate to say as a follower of their religion. He says, "It's difficult to believe that Ivanka Trump and Sammy Davis jr...are from the same ethnicity". He adds that Zionism manufactured the rules of Jewish ethnicity (maternal lineage argument) and that it's even difficult for zionists to wrap their heads around.

My definitions for these terms will always come from scripture, but I believe this confusion was necessary to fulfill zionists' plans.

It's an interesting interview.

---

To the thread: Do we agree with this seasoned rabbi's definition of Zionism? If so, he defines it as a hijacking of identity and a departure from the Torah (i.e., laws) and from the hope for a resurrected messiah to govern them...completely contradictory to scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament.

To say that unsaved and secular Jews today actually know why and how they are presently in the land is ridiculous.

Because if they ACTUALLY KNEW......they would be Messianic Jews aka Christians.

For pity's sake there are TONS of supposed Christians on this thread WHO DO NOT KNOW either. Which is even more ridiculous.

 

[cv5]

I actually oppose it relentlessly, for which I endure criticisms of being antisemitic and a Jew-hater, some within this very thread. Perhaps take a look at others who share your belief, and the direction they are taking it?

John Hagee would perhaps be one of the big promoters of the heresy I speak against, and looking at his credentials (from Wikipedia), he's certainly one of yours (i.e. a Zionist and Rothschild State of Israel supporter).
• Founder and chairman of the Christian Zionist organisation Christians United for Israel, which lobbies members of the United States Congress using a biblical stance for promoting Christian Zionism;
• Stated that he believes the bible commands Christians to support the [Rothschild] State of Israel;
• Claimed that a reference in Jeremiah 16:16 to "fishers" and "hunters" was symbolic of positive motivation (Herzl/Zionism)and negative motivation (Hitler/Nazism) respectively, both men were sent by God for the purpose of having Jews return to Israel, and he suggested that the Holocaust was willed by God because most Jews "ignored" Herzl.

Speaking of faulty assumptions, this is another of yours. Speaking against the crimes of the Rothschild State of Israel, and/or the West's complicity in its crimes by supporting such a criminal state with weapons and money to carry out its crimes is actually a blessing to all people - both Jew and Gentile - and has nothing to do with terminating the Jews very existence (although no one can really define what a Jew is since the destruction of the temple in 70AD).

@Moses_Young said:
"or are they God's chosen people who will be automatically saved because of their lineage that has been unable to be verified for near 2000 years since the temple was destroyed?"

There it is again. Right?
Ambivalent about your own Jewish identity are we? Tragic.

 

[GaryA]

I am thinking the the historicist position is also a dual covenant /dual track salvation position correct?

If I understand correctly what you are saying here - "Good heavens, no!"...

 

[GaryA]

What is your answer @GaryA @TabinRivCA @Romans34 @Moses_Young ?

[Dan 9:26 KJV]
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

[Dan 9:27 KJV]
And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

"And he (the prince that shall come) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: "

No sane human being on planet earth thinks that this has happened since the Resurrection and Ascension. It is NOWHERE in recorded history. NO GENTILE RULER (or any earthly ruler) has ever confirmed ANY 7 year covenant with the nation Israel. Or the Church for that matter. And it certainly does not dovetail into your bogus eschatology either.

==================================================================================

One verse. ONE SINGLE VERSE utterly wipes out all of your heretical eschatological pretentions.
I expect much raving, red "x"-s, denials and unintelligible flailing to be the result of this post, this much is entirely predictable.

I expect that you will likely (unfortunately) be "stuck" in this erroneous view for the rest of your life - unless, of course, you actually one day "wake up" and decide to swallow your pride and consider the possibility that you are in error.

You do not yet realize that you are hanging onto a severe misinterpretation of this "one single verse" (not to mention, the whole passage/chapter) - and, you will remain in error for as long as you are not willing to let go of it...

 

[GaryA]

You can't rip Romans 11 out of the Bible. Christians are not the true Jews. That's false, it's heresy. The Bible doesn't teach it.

The early Christians were most certainly "true Jews" (from an 'Israel heritage' point of view) - the same ones that escaped the siege of Jerusalem circa 70 A.D.

And, the "true Jews" that did not escape - died or were carried off into the land of other nations.

Of course, there were also other "true Jews" outside of Jerusalem; however, if I remember correctly, most-or-all of them were killed or carried off into the land of other nations as well...

 

[GaryA]

Yes the "abomination that causeth desolation" was the crucifixion.

No.

 

[GaryA]

In Mark’s narrative it is the execution of the Messiah through the deliberate conspiracy of the Jewish religious leaders that is the “abomination that causes desolation.”

No.

 

[GaryA]

I am wanting to understand why you, yourself support this historicist perspective and why you think it works Biblically.

Because, it is the only perspective that properly matches all of the details indicated in scripture. The 'preterist' and 'futurist' perspectives do not...

 

[HeIsHere]

Because, it is the only perspective that properly matches all of the details indicated in scripture. The 'preterist' and 'futurist' perspectives do not...

Okay, I do not think this discussion board is really the place to go into the depth and breadth of historicist versus a non-futurist view.

However, what/who is the abomination that causes desolation in the historicist position?

 

[GaryA]

The real truth is revealed in the Bible and confirmed by history.

Well,that depends. If referring to Christians,this would be true.
If referring to those who desparrage the Jews,not at all.

This is very telling...

Let me tell you something about truth - it "just is" - it does not depend on anything.

It stands on its own. All things depend on it.

And, if you (whoever) do not realize and understand this - you are most certainly self-deceived and not "in the truth"...

The Bible reveals the truth about everything - God, Satan, angels, demons, humans - the good, the bad, and the ugly.

If you only believe the parts that you feel comfortable with, you will not be able to know and understand - and accept- the whole truth about the world you live in.

It's a matter of context. My answer that you quoted was to a question about the Bible.

You quoted a statement about truth revealed in the Bible yet answered a question about the Bible????? Instead of your remarks being a reply to the quoted statement????? It is no wonder why there is so much confusion!

I made a statement about truth from the perspective of truth itself. I was not referring to any particular group of people and/or what they believed.

Your reply certainly seemed to be saying that truth was only truth if it concerned a particular group of people and not other groups.

If you are wise, you will not make this mistake again!

In a thread like this, you need to be very specific in your choice of words so that others know exactly-and-precisely what you are talking about and referring to.

The willy-nilly attitude that says "I am just going to speak from left field - but - you will surely know exactly what I mean." is completely careless.

Go ahead - ask everyone else in the thread how they interpreted your reply to my statement.

If you are not going to care any more than that to make sure you are clearly understood by others - I probably do not wish to discuss this topic with you at all...

 

[Yahshua]

To say that unsaved and secular Jews today actually know why and how they are presently in the land is ridiculous.

Because if they ACTUALLY KNEW......they would be Messianic Jews aka Christians.

For pity's sake there are TONS of supposed Christians on this thread WHO DO NOT KNOW either. Which is even more ridiculous.

You are entertaining if nothing else, CV. But the issue was about defining Zionism. Can you define Zionism?

 

[GaryA]

It's not a false category. It's a proud reality for those in Christian Identity .

What's fascinating in your taking umbrage?
You can't help yourself in disparaging Jews, again.

I detect no disparagement in what he said that you quoted.

Are you not painting with way-too-big of a brush here?

Why are you so certain that he falls into this 'category'?

 

[MeowFlower]

I detect no disparagement in what he said that you quoted.

Are you not painting with way-too-big of a brush here?

Why are you so certain that he falls into this 'category'?

How are you so sure he doesn't?
The brush arrived as being particular in observation to their remarks.

Do you know anything about CI?

 

[GaryA]

Yes,it's history. However,referring to that attack in any thread related to a contemporary conflict involving Israel for those who don't know that history makes the 1967 attack sound synonymous with the current drama.

It also has no place in the current conflict discussion.

I suggest that anything having to do with the events of 1948/1967 and the creation of the modern state of Israel is relevant to the discussion.

 

[MeowFlower]

You quoted a statement about truth revealed in the Bible yet answered a question about the Bible????? Instead of your remarks being a reply to the quoted statement????? It is no wonder why there is so much confusion!

I made a statement about truth from the perspective of truth itself. I was not referring to any particular group of people and/or what they believed.

Your reply certainly seemed to be saying that truth was only truth if it concerned a particular group of people and not other groups.

If you are wise, you will not make this mistake again!

In a thread like this, you need to be very specific in your choice of words so that others know exactly-and-precisely what you are talking about and referring to.

The willy-nilly attitude that says "I am just going to speak from left field - but - you will surely know exactly what I mean." is completely careless.

Go ahead - ask everyone else in the thread how they interpreted your reply to my statement.

If you are not going to care any more than that to make sure you are clearly understood by others - I probably do not wish to discuss this topic with you at all...

You take incredible liberties in implying you speak for others not solely yourself.

This tactic of yours won't work except to engender agreement among those like you.
You can't respond to the facts so you imply I am not understanding your prior post against my own post.

Unless you have a deficit in reading comprehension. In which case it is understandable.
And can explain your confusion.
My post was clear. And it addressed you.


Are you like the street punks? Who talk trash all by themselves but when confronted to answer for it call a gang to fight what they alone can invite yet cannot face?

You're not discussing this topic. You're insisting the OP topic is to be accepted as is without rebuttal by history and God's word.
Actual history and God's word. Not the CI corruption of those.

 

[MeowFlower]

I suggest that anything having to do with the events of 1948/1967 and the creation of the modern state of Israel is relevant to the discussion.

It is the additional brick in the foundation of the discussion. The origin of the foundation is Scripture.

Injecting an attack by Israeli navy in the 60's upon an American ship is intended to be an inflammatory barb against Israels staunchest allie, America.
Are you next going to bring up Entebbe raid?

Injecting Red Herrings makes you a poor fisherman for rational informed discussion. Which explains your tactics as you cannot actually contribute with intellectual honesty to them.

Waiting for the red and white judgement X yet again. You're good at that too. You and Moses.

Cute. It's your admission of lack of understanding. It's sad.

 

[GaryA]

I have my doubts about reaching a consensus because it requires accepting certain historical facts that some of us aren't willing to accept. However, I'm willing to try.

Of course - I understand - but, it does not mean we cannot try to encourage others to do the right thing.

Thank you for your willingness to support the idea that - if we all care enough - and exercise enough self-discipline - we can/could actually achieve it.

I appreciate you, brother.

 

[GaryA]

To the thread: Do we agree with this seasoned rabbi's definition of Zionism? If so, he defines it as a hijacking of identity and a departure from the Torah (i.e., laws) and from the hope for a resurrected messiah to govern them...completely contradictory to scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament.

I plan to come back to this post to give it a more thorough reading - and watch the video(s).

 

[Yahshua]

It is the additional brick in the foundation of the discussion. The origin of the foundation is Scripture.

Injecting an attack by Israeli navy in the 60's upon an American ship is intended to be an inflammatory barb against Israels staunchest allie, America.
Are you next going to bring up Entebbe raid?

Injecting Red Herrings makes you a poor fisherman for rational informed discussion. Which explains your tactics as you cannot actually contribute with intellectual honesty to them.

Waiting for the red and white judgement X yet again. You're good at that too. You and Moses.

Cute. It's your admission of lack of understanding. It's sad.

Ad hominem. I've yet to read anything related to the discussion from you.