Support Israel? Yes or No? And Why?
- Thread starter Roughsoul1991
- 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.
This part of Luke 21 is not speaking of the far-future Tribulation Period, as you seem to suggest by your coupling it with such references (Rev11:2 and Zech13:8); but rather is speaking of the events surrounding 70ad, as is all of vv.12-23,24a.
[see Matt22:7 and Lk19:41-44 and Dan9:26b]
[see Matt22:7 and Lk19:41-44 and Dan9:26b]
-
1
- Show all
Not only were the Abrahamic promises *not* cancelled, but they were affirmed by Paul.
Gal 3.17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
So the introduction of the NT period did *not* annul the promises God made to Abraham. I believe, however, that even though Israel has a place in future prophecy, Israel, like all other nations, has to be judged. When we support Israel, therefore, it is not a carte blanche embrace of all things Jewish or all things Israel. Like all other international treaties, the concern has to be focused on the national interest. As a US citizen, I have to be sensitive to the fact some of the largest populations of Jews in the world are here in the US, and they would naturally have an interest in a Jewish nation. I also have to be sensitive to the fact Israel is a democracy in a sea of Muslim theocracies.
Since the US is a eclectic mix of ethnicities in a secular democracy, there might be a concern, as well, for Arabs, Palestinians, Iranians, etc. However, as a conservative Christian in the US, I would err on the side of Israel, due primarily to my sense that justice leans more on the side of the Jews than on the side of the Palestinians. Though both Islam and Judaism are wrong religions, in my view, I see Judaism today as much more amenable to Christianity than Islam. And I see current Jewish feelings as closer to a Christian sense of justice than Muslims.
Moreover, having become familiar with both Scriptures and Jewish experiences in NT history I have a deep sense of compassion, knowing that God wishes to use Israel as an example to the world of His enduring wish to restore nations, to restore those who have fallen from the way. It is a universal example of grace and mercy--something we should all subscribe to. I don't see the Muslim populations of the world, and the atheistic and agnostic populations of the world, show any love for Israel in this regard. I strongly resist that!
Gal 3.17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
So the introduction of the NT period did *not* annul the promises God made to Abraham. I believe, however, that even though Israel has a place in future prophecy, Israel, like all other nations, has to be judged. When we support Israel, therefore, it is not a carte blanche embrace of all things Jewish or all things Israel. Like all other international treaties, the concern has to be focused on the national interest. As a US citizen, I have to be sensitive to the fact some of the largest populations of Jews in the world are here in the US, and they would naturally have an interest in a Jewish nation. I also have to be sensitive to the fact Israel is a democracy in a sea of Muslim theocracies.
Since the US is a eclectic mix of ethnicities in a secular democracy, there might be a concern, as well, for Arabs, Palestinians, Iranians, etc. However, as a conservative Christian in the US, I would err on the side of Israel, due primarily to my sense that justice leans more on the side of the Jews than on the side of the Palestinians. Though both Islam and Judaism are wrong religions, in my view, I see Judaism today as much more amenable to Christianity than Islam. And I see current Jewish feelings as closer to a Christian sense of justice than Muslims.
Moreover, having become familiar with both Scriptures and Jewish experiences in NT history I have a deep sense of compassion, knowing that God wishes to use Israel as an example to the world of His enduring wish to restore nations, to restore those who have fallen from the way. It is a universal example of grace and mercy--something we should all subscribe to. I don't see the Muslim populations of the world, and the atheistic and agnostic populations of the world, show any love for Israel in this regard. I strongly resist that!
-
1
-
1
- Show all
P
In my opinion there is no old orNew testament. We have defined that.
With that being said let me explain. The old testament is the New testament hidden, the New testament is the old testament revealed.
The church in times past has separated itself from Judaism. Though our foundation is quite solid we avoid the fine print.
God in his gracious ways has given warning signs about events taking place that puts Nations in jeopardy.
These are found in the examples of Israel in the old testament and are not studied enough nor preached enough.
We agree we have one God who is never changing yet some seem to think that the God of the old is not the God of the new.
Jesus came to fulfill and to save he came in peace. He did not come to change nor institute another way of belief in any category. In other words Jesus came to finish the works of God the father.
With that being said let me explain. The old testament is the New testament hidden, the New testament is the old testament revealed.
The church in times past has separated itself from Judaism. Though our foundation is quite solid we avoid the fine print.
God in his gracious ways has given warning signs about events taking place that puts Nations in jeopardy.
These are found in the examples of Israel in the old testament and are not studied enough nor preached enough.
We agree we have one God who is never changing yet some seem to think that the God of the old is not the God of the new.
Jesus came to fulfill and to save he came in peace. He did not come to change nor institute another way of belief in any category. In other words Jesus came to finish the works of God the father.
I apologize in advance--you likely will not like my answer--nobody seems to. US Democracy is not the 10 Commandments, and of course, not a Christian Theocracy. I am not *against* Christian theocracies, if one can call them that?
For me, a Christian Theocracy is not a religious dictatorship, but what God has always wanted--Christian nations with Christian governments. The US democratic system was, at one time, a type of Christian theocracy, as I call it, because it preferred Christianity, even though it tolerated nonChristian beliefs and religious practices.
Eventually, non-Christian beliefs and practices grew as big as or bigger than Christian beliefs. It became more important to protect minority pagan religions than it did to uphold Christian morals. And so US Democracy today is no longer theocratic in any sense. It holds as equal abortion and a prohibition on murder. It holds as equal homosexuality as heterosexual marriage. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and paganism are all equal in the eyes of our Constitutional system, whereas originally I don't think that was really what was intended. Tolerance was not legal guarantees that pagan practices were acceptable.
In my view religious pluralism, as guaranteed by our Secular Democracy, is equal to idolatry. God said to a nation that as a majority consent to following only Him: "Have no other gods." Secular Democracies today say: "All religions are equal, and should be equally tolerated and accepted." Christian Monotheism is not equal to Religious Plurlaism. Christianity does not equal Idolatry!
For me, a Christian Theocracy is not a religious dictatorship, but what God has always wanted--Christian nations with Christian governments. The US democratic system was, at one time, a type of Christian theocracy, as I call it, because it preferred Christianity, even though it tolerated nonChristian beliefs and religious practices.
Eventually, non-Christian beliefs and practices grew as big as or bigger than Christian beliefs. It became more important to protect minority pagan religions than it did to uphold Christian morals. And so US Democracy today is no longer theocratic in any sense. It holds as equal abortion and a prohibition on murder. It holds as equal homosexuality as heterosexual marriage. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and paganism are all equal in the eyes of our Constitutional system, whereas originally I don't think that was really what was intended. Tolerance was not legal guarantees that pagan practices were acceptable.
In my view religious pluralism, as guaranteed by our Secular Democracy, is equal to idolatry. God said to a nation that as a majority consent to following only Him: "Have no other gods." Secular Democracies today say: "All religions are equal, and should be equally tolerated and accepted." Christian Monotheism is not equal to Religious Plurlaism. Christianity does not equal Idolatry!
-
2
-
1
- Show all
We currently operate out of a constitution that acknowledges God and Jesus as it was signed in the year of our Lord. It set the foundation and protected the right to religion which allows morality to help fight corruption in the government. Our laws are by majority are founded in scripture as the Bible was the most referenced book. I say all this because I am not ignorant of reality. Of course, our government has shifted far from it's roots BUT they have yet to uproot the roots. So technically we are not a secular by definition nation. We are still a Christian nation as defined by the Supreme Court.
-
2
- Show all
P
The supreme court does acknowledge the existence of God as we place our hand on the bible and swear to tell the truth.
But does that person swearing the oath believe in that God? Or any god for that matter.
Notice that the oath giver is never asked that question. The oath has just become a formality.
The earlier church of the states got much involved into political and community matters but as time passed it's involvement lessened.
But does that person swearing the oath believe in that God? Or any god for that matter.
Notice that the oath giver is never asked that question. The oath has just become a formality.
The earlier church of the states got much involved into political and community matters but as time passed it's involvement lessened.
-
1
- Show all
Good luck with anybody believing that. Obama said we aren't a Christian country, and he was right. We're now a hybrid country. Less than half the country believes our government should be exclusively Christian at all--perhaps a very small minority. Do *you* even believe we should be an *exclusively*-Christian country?
-
1
- Show all
Your knowledge is worldly secular.
Can you remember Job's story in OT?
Job encountered the most intolerable thing for ordinary people. If the Rockets attacked Job's family, how would Job face it ?
Job only looked up to God. Job did not even revile his enemies, let alone eye for eye and tooth for tooth killing for killing.
We are not here to anti-Jews,
We just want Israel to understand the truth, the truth from the God of Israel.
Can you remember Job's story in OT?
Job encountered the most intolerable thing for ordinary people. If the Rockets attacked Job's family, how would Job face it ?
Job only looked up to God. Job did not even revile his enemies, let alone eye for eye and tooth for tooth killing for killing.
We are not here to anti-Jews,
We just want Israel to understand the truth, the truth from the God of Israel.
-
1
- Show all
Matthew
Chapter 7
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
SO if I want point out beam in your eyes, I must point out beam in my own eye.
I used to think the same as you,till I find out the beam in my own eye.
So
If I point out your problem directly, it is a bit of disrespectful. If I say something about myself, it may be a lot better
Chapter 7
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
SO if I want point out beam in your eyes, I must point out beam in my own eye.
I used to think the same as you,till I find out the beam in my own eye.
So
If I point out your problem directly, it is a bit of disrespectful. If I say something about myself, it may be a lot better
I'm not "Preterist". 
I believe the tribulation period is yet future, even from our present-day perspective.
I agree, the AC is yet future, from our present-day perspective; he will be "revealed" at the start of the future Trib years, as I've said in many past posts.
I did not say it did.
Read again, more carefully.
The "great tribulation," i.e. the last 1260 days / 42 mos / 3.5 yrs, NOR the entire 7-yr tribulation have yet come into play. Certainly not.
They are also yet future, from our present-day perspective; ONLY verses Lk21:12-24a speak of the "70ad events" which, as v.12 says, must come "BEFORE ALL" the beginning of birth pangs that vv.8-11 had just described... and which "beginning of birth pangs" are what "kick off" the future tribulation period according to Paul speaking of its "ARRIVAL" / its manner of arrival, in 1Th5:2-3 and that passage's correlations / parallel passages.
So, yes, I agree the trib and its AC are "future"... Lk21:12-24a is referencing neither of those.
But that passage (Lk21:12-24a) does supply "chronology" issues.
In Luke 21:12-24a, the only part of the Olivet Discourse covering the 70ad events, that section starts out informing us that "before" the beginning of birth pangs can occur, the 70ad events of vv.12-24a must take place including "and they shall be led away captive into all the nations," and "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles UNTIL..." which are two lengthy things that correspond with Daniel 9:26b's "desolationS [plural] are determined" in that "sequential" passage of Dan9:24-27a/b/c, with v.27a/b/c being yet "future" aka the trib years, and v.26b identifying the person-of-interest (the AC) of that "future" time-period.
I believe the tribulation period is yet future, even from our present-day perspective.
I agree, the AC is yet future, from our present-day perspective; he will be "revealed" at the start of the future Trib years, as I've said in many past posts.
I did not say it did.
Read again, more carefully.
The "great tribulation," i.e. the last 1260 days / 42 mos / 3.5 yrs, NOR the entire 7-yr tribulation have yet come into play. Certainly not.
They are also yet future, from our present-day perspective; ONLY verses Lk21:12-24a speak of the "70ad events" which, as v.12 says, must come "BEFORE ALL" the beginning of birth pangs that vv.8-11 had just described... and which "beginning of birth pangs" are what "kick off" the future tribulation period according to Paul speaking of its "ARRIVAL" / its manner of arrival, in 1Th5:2-3 and that passage's correlations / parallel passages.
So, yes, I agree the trib and its AC are "future"... Lk21:12-24a is referencing neither of those.
But that passage (Lk21:12-24a) does supply "chronology" issues.
In Luke 21:12-24a, the only part of the Olivet Discourse covering the 70ad events, that section starts out informing us that "before" the beginning of birth pangs can occur, the 70ad events of vv.12-24a must take place including "and they shall be led away captive into all the nations," and "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles UNTIL..." which are two lengthy things that correspond with Daniel 9:26b's "desolationS [plural] are determined" in that "sequential" passage of Dan9:24-27a/b/c, with v.27a/b/c being yet "future" aka the trib years, and v.26b identifying the person-of-interest (the AC) of that "future" time-period.
-
1
- Show all
I'm not "Preterist".
I believe the tribulation period is yet future, even from our present-day perspective.
I agree, the AC is yet future, from our present-day perspective; he will be "revealed" at the start of the future Trib years, as I've said in many past posts.
I did not say it did.
Read again, more carefully.
The "great tribulation," i.e. the last 1260 days / 42 mos / 3.5 yrs, NOR the entire 7-yr tribulation have yet come into play. Certainly not.
They are also yet future, from our present-day perspective; ONLY verses Lk21:12-24a speak of the "70ad events" which, as v.12 says, must come "BEFORE ALL" the beginning of birth pangs that vv.8-11 had just described... and which "beginning of birth pangs" are what "kick off" the future tribulation period according to Paul speaking of its "ARRIVAL" / its manner of arrival, in 1Th5:2-3 and that passage's correlations / parallel passages.
So, yes, I agree the trib and its AC are "future"... Lk21:12-24a is referencing neither of those.
But that passage (Lk21:12-24a) does supply "chronology" issues.
In Luke 21:12-24a, the only part of the Olivet Discourse covering the 70ad events, that section starts out informing us that "before" the beginning of birth pangs can occur, the 70ad events of vv.12-24a must take place including "and they shall be led away captive into all the nations," and "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles UNTIL..." which are two lengthy things that correspond with Daniel 9:26b's "desolationS [plural] are determined" in that "sequential" passage of Dan9:24-27a/b/c, with v.27a/b/c being yet "future" aka the trib years, and v.26b identifying the person-of-interest (the AC) of that "future" time-period.
I believe the tribulation period is yet future, even from our present-day perspective.
I agree, the AC is yet future, from our present-day perspective; he will be "revealed" at the start of the future Trib years, as I've said in many past posts.
I did not say it did.
Read again, more carefully.
The "great tribulation," i.e. the last 1260 days / 42 mos / 3.5 yrs, NOR the entire 7-yr tribulation have yet come into play. Certainly not.
They are also yet future, from our present-day perspective; ONLY verses Lk21:12-24a speak of the "70ad events" which, as v.12 says, must come "BEFORE ALL" the beginning of birth pangs that vv.8-11 had just described... and which "beginning of birth pangs" are what "kick off" the future tribulation period according to Paul speaking of its "ARRIVAL" / its manner of arrival, in 1Th5:2-3 and that passage's correlations / parallel passages.
So, yes, I agree the trib and its AC are "future"... Lk21:12-24a is referencing neither of those.
But that passage (Lk21:12-24a) does supply "chronology" issues.
In Luke 21:12-24a, the only part of the Olivet Discourse covering the 70ad events, that section starts out informing us that "before" the beginning of birth pangs can occur, the 70ad events of vv.12-24a must take place including "and they shall be led away captive into all the nations," and "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles UNTIL..." which are two lengthy things that correspond with Daniel 9:26b's "desolationS [plural] are determined" in that "sequential" passage of Dan9:24-27a/b/c, with v.27a/b/c being yet "future" aka the trib years, and v.26b identifying the person-of-interest (the AC) of that "future" time-period.
I will refrain from further response to your games and written chaos
Quote: DivineWaterMark post #1243 above
"This part of Luke 21 is not speaking of the far-future Tribulation Period, as you seem to suggest by your coupling it with such references (Rev11:2 and Zech13:8); but rather is speaking of the events surrounding 70ad, as is all of vv.12-23,24a."
All this applies to the church, we the church have become co-heirs and and fellow citizens of the Jewish commonwealth
We have not become cuckoos
We do not therefore push the natural chicks out of the nest, if you push the Jews out with whom are we co heirs and fellow citizens? of what commonwealth are we fellow citizens of? All the covenants including the new covenant is made with them, we have become partakers of their covenant of promises through Christ and not by obedience to the law.
At present they are cut off from their olive tree until the full number of the Gentiles are come in. They will then be grafted back in.
And the rest of mankind will come in through them .... are you glad about that?
We have not become cuckoos
We do not therefore push the natural chicks out of the nest, if you push the Jews out with whom are we co heirs and fellow citizens? of what commonwealth are we fellow citizens of? All the covenants including the new covenant is made with them, we have become partakers of their covenant of promises through Christ and not by obedience to the law.
At present they are cut off from their olive tree until the full number of the Gentiles are come in. They will then be grafted back in.
And the rest of mankind will come in through them .... are you glad about that?
-
3
-
1
- Show all