Trump just criticized Netanyahu and Israel
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (98)
sorted by:
Yes! On the Christian front it started with the English preacher John Nelson Darby, followed soon there after by the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1830. It introduced American Christians to the dispensationalism. The main doctrine sees the church as distinct from national Israel. In fact it puts the nation of Israel as the focus of "end time" prophecy - in the "last days" God will deal with Israel and the Jews. The rebirth of the modern nation of Israel (1948) is seen as the work of God (instead of the work of the Rothschilds). And as a Christian is you don't support Israel (no matter the evil) you are against God.
While 1948 was, indeed, the work of the Rothschilds, it was still a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. You’ll do well to notice that when Christ returns he will judge Israel for their unbelief. Indeed, Israel was re-gathered under that unbelief in 1948. There will only be a remnant (1/3) saved during the great tribulation (the time of Jacob’s trouble), whereas the other 2/3 will be wiped out:
Vengeance, if the messiah had already came (Jesus) then the jews await the arrival of the antichrist
No. "Israel in Name Only" is not Israel.
It is just a facade.
The jews are NOT the Israelites.
Here, the word "Jews" was not the original word used. It is a mistranslation. One of many in the current Bible. "Jew" did not appear in the Bible until about 200-300 years ago. It was a made-up word for English translation, since the earlier languages needed to be translated and there was no equivalent in English.
The correct word was "Judean."
By the time of Christ, Judea was no longer exclusively populated by the tribe of Judah. There was a mix, just like America today.
There were genetic Judeans, who were descendents of Jacob/Israel and were Israelites, but there were also Edomites and others who lived in the Roman province of Judea.
In Rev 2:9, the reference is to those who say they are Judeans (the tribe) but are not (because they are merely residents in Judea), and are in fact of the synagogue of Satan (some modern day jews).
Here, Jesus is addressing these fake Judeans, stating that they are children of Satan (adversary). Who was the first murderer? It was Cain. These people are desended from Cain, the murderer. Who is the father of lies? The fake Judeans, or the Adversary ("Satan").
Modern Christians have been lied to about who is who in the Bible. It should not be surprising that it is these fake Judeans who created the lies by infiltrating Christianity (cryptojews). Their claim to understand Hebrew got them in the door, and then they manipulated their way into changing words/translations in the Bible.
Modern day Israel is not a fulfillment of prophecy. It is a manipulation by jews and it is false to say it is a re-gathering of Israel.
But then, this should be expected, since the land was stolen by the children of the Great Deceiver.
Benjamin Freedman disusses this mistranslation of Judean to Jew (starts at about 1:03:20):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RDop7h3Th6Ad/
You presented a complex interpretation of John 8:44 and various historical claims. Let's address these claims one by one:
In John 8:44, Jesus is speaking to a group of people (Pharisees) who were opposing Him. He accuses them of being of their father, the devil, based on their actions. This passage is not intended to be a commentary on the genealogy of the people but rather a condemnation of those who were opposing Him at that time. There is no direct connection to descendants of Cain in this context.
The claim that certain individuals, described as "fake Judeans," infiltrated Christianity and manipulated translations of the Bible is not supported by historical or scholarly research. The development of Christian doctrine and the compilation of the Bible involved many early Christian communities and scholars. The idea of a conspiracy by a particular group is not a widely accepted or substantiated historical claim.
The interpretation of modern Israel as not being a fulfillment of prophecy is, indeed, a matter of theological and political debate. Many Christians (myself included) and Jews view the re-establishment of Israel in 1948 as extremely significant in light of biblical prophecies about the regathering of the Jewish people. However, there are also differing views within the Christian and Jewish communities regarding the fulfillment of these prophecies.
The assertion that the land of modern Israel was "stolen" is a complex and highly debated issue (as seen on this Forum). The establishment of Israel in 1948 is rooted in historical, political, and religious factors, including the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. It has generated various perspectives and debates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
#GreatDiscussion
I realize that the Catholics and the jews, over several centuries, have pushed that idea, but I disagree.
Their father is the Devil because of their genealogy, not their lack of belief.
Jesus says in another verse that they CANNOT believe him BECAUSE they are not His people. It is not that they are not his people because they don't believe him, but that they don't (and cannot) believe him (or even understand him) BECAUSE they are not his people -- genealogy.
I did not invent this idea myself. I read it from scholarly research -- going back to original words and definitions, as well as non-biblical records and history of the time.
The passage has to do with people who were (a) living in the Roman province of Judea, and (b) were NOT direct descendants of Jacob/Israel.
But they claimed to be. They said they were children of Abraham (again, genealogy). Jesus agreed that they WERE children of Abraham, but NOT of God.
Why would he say that? Abraham was God's favorite.
It is because of ... genealogy.
Those people were, in fact, descendants of Abraham, but NOT of the Jacob/Israel line, which means they were NOT Israelites.
One of the many things we have all been lied to about is that (a) the jews were the Israelites, and (b) at the same time it somehow "doesn't matter" about genealogy.
That is a contradiction, which means it cannot be true.
The Bible is largely about genealogy and the Law and promises given to THAT particular family tree. Early Christians understood this, and it has been bastardized over the centuries.
The Bible is full of "this man begat that son" who "begat that son," ad infinitum.
Why bother describing the family tree if it was of no significance?
Why would jews claim to be Israelites and claim that this is significant today if genealogy did not matter?
Why was Noah, of all people, chosen by God Himself to build the ark? Because Noah was "perfect in his generations."
Why does the Bible not mention black people, Asian people, Indians, etc?
There are Israelites and Edomites and Kenites, and many others, but none of what we see today. The Isrealites were given the ultimate covenant, and it was passed on to their descendants.
It is not entirely about genealogy, but genealogy plays a vital and central role throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Again, the "jew" was NOT in the original text. It was Judeans, and the word "Jew" was a shortened version of Judean, since there was no equivalent word in English for the translation.
Therefore, the "regathering of the Jews in Israel" is, in fact, an impossibility.
It is a fantasy made up by Jews and the Catholics many centuries ago.
I realize that many (most) Christians today have bought into this myth, but it is a myth. Jews continue to promote it because it benefits them.
Even the jews themselves, in their own texts, say they are Edomites, not Israelites. Their Talmud also shows how much they hate Mosaic law, since it is all about how to "get around" the Law, how much they hate Jesus, how much they hate Christianity, and how much they hate Christians.
Clearly, there is no way they could possibly be Gods' Chosen People.
Yes, the land has been stolen from the people who lived there.
See: https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.S3tLKsXdWSMyaH9P9h3WigHaHa&pid=Api
It is understandable that some people would hate others who broke their own agreement to stay within a certain area, but continue to encroach (i.e. steal) land.
True. The Balfour Declaration was the start.
Aftermath of WW1 was the beginning of the manipulation to get Palestine, which never belonged to jews.
There was no Holocaust. It, too, is a lie perpetuated by jews.
It has been proven that there were NO GAS CHAMBERS, and the jews have never been able to debate otherwise.
In addition, the World Almanac showed that there were more jews living in the world after WW2 than before.
The math does not add up, and all supposed "evidence" has been fabricated.
Interesting research, if you are interested.
I think I will leave our discussion here, since I don't have time, and we are getting off topic of Q -- plus, it is a volatile subject.
MAG768720, thank you for such a thoughtful reply. I appreciate the scholarly, respectful, exchange you're providing. Some things you say I agree with. Lets discuss them a little further:
You asserts that Jews are not the Israelites. While there are different opinions on this matter, it's important to note that Jewish identity has been maintained through religious, cultural, and historical traditions. The Bible uses the term "Jew" to refer to the people of the Kingdom of Judah and, more broadly, to the descendants of Jacob, who was also known as Israel. The distinction between the tribes can be traced back to the division of the Israelite kingdom into the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah). This division occurred after the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 12). While the terms "Israelite" and "Jew" have been used differently, they both have biblical significance.
You quote Revelation 2:9, which discusses the blasphemy of those who claim to be Jews but are not. In this passage, it's important to understand the context of the letter to the church in Smyrna. The term "Jews" in this context refers to those who claim to be followers of God but engage in actions opposed to God's will. It's not meant to deny the Jewish identity but to address the spiritual state of certain individuals. This passage should not be interpreted as a blanket statement about all Jews or their identity.
You also mention that the term "Jew" is a relatively recent addition to English translations, and that "Judean" was the original word used. It's true that languages evolve, and translation choices can vary over time. However, the use of "Jew" in English translations is a common and accepted term. The term "Judean" could be a more precise translation in some contexts, but it's important to recognize that translations aim to convey meaning accurately.
You correctly state that by the time of Christ, Judea was no longer exclusively populated by the tribe of Judah. This is accurate; Judea, like many regions, had a diverse population. However, the use of "Jew" or "Judean" in the New Testament often refers to those living in the region of Judea, and not solely to the tribe of Judah. It's a geographical reference.
The term "Jew" is widely recognized in English as a reference to a Jewish person, while the term "Israelite" can have broader historical and biblical connotations.
While classical dispensationalism as formulated by theologians like C.I. Scofield and John Nelson Darby had its distinctive features, some of its elements can be traced to earlier theological traditions and interpretations of the Bible. Here are a few examples:
1.Distinction Between Israel and the Church: • Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr (2nd century) and Irenaeus (2nd century) acknowledged distinctions between God’s dealings with Israel and the Church in their writings. They recognized that God had specific plans for both groups.
2.Futurist Interpretation of Prophecy: •The belief in future prophetic events can be traced to various interpretations of the Book of Revelation in early Christian writings. Some early Church theologians, like Hippolytus (3rd century), held views that anticipated future fulfillment of certain prophecies.
3.Premillennialism: • The concept of a future literal thousand-year reign of Christ has been present in different forms throughout Christian history. Papias (1st century) is often cited as an early proponent of premillennialism, and it has appeared in the writings of various Church Fathers.
4.Rapture: • While the term “rapture” was not used in the same way as in classical dispensationalism, early Christian writers such as Ephraem the Syrian (4th century) and Jerome (4th-5th century) discussed the idea of believers being caught up to meet Christ in connection with 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
While classical dispensationalism combined these elements into a systematic theological framework and popularized them in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it’s important to recognize that many of these ideas had antecedents in Christian thought and theology prior to the Scofield Study Bible. Dispensationalism itself has evolved over time, with variations and modifications to its original form.
You have a specific slant against the Scofield reference Bible and Darby that appears unfounded, for the same distinctions made in Modern Dispensationalism were drawn by very early believers in Christendom.
#RightlyDividingTheWord
They also added the rapture in the Bible a around that time, imo its a psyop. To trick the masses into thinking there is a plan by God so christains shouldn't do anything but wait
No. The early church fathers wrote about and believed in the harpazo (rapture). Contrary to the current “no rapture/Darby” thing which has been proven fake news. The devil is very clever.
Those who believe in the rapture are not complacent. But try harder to wake people up to the ultimate red pill that God is real. Jesus is real. And eternity in hell is a very long time. The tribulation is going to be hell on earth and if one doesn’t accept the free gift of salvation now (when times are good), do you think a person will when times are horrific?
During that time, a person’s choices will be (assuming you live thru God’s anger, natural and man-made catastrophes) to accept the mark/worship the beast or accept Jesus.
If you accept the mark to get your food, water and to survive you’ve just signed up for eternity in hell. If you find Jesus instead, then you’ll be denied food, water, hunted down and beheaded.
So, no…God in his mercy has given us a way to avoid this horrible period of time. Rapture believers are not complacent but trying to take as many with us as we can.
Amen
Yes the secret rapture. I'm ashamed to say I used to teach that false doctrine.