New report questions Israel's claim of "divine right"

reply to post by charles1952

. . . there are some Bible scholars who say nearly everything in the New Testament is fake, but that's a different problem.

Lets suppose that there was a person named Jesus and he had disciples, most of whom became Apostles, and let's throw in one who was an Apostle but not one of the original disciples.
OK, lets say you have a thing called a new testament supposedly based on the works of those Apostles.
Fast forward to the present, it is discovered that some of the new testament was written in fact not by the Apostles, but forgers who just liked the idea of having their works noticed because they claimed to be written by the Apostles, but after they are dead and gone and can't complain about it.
Do you just go on believing in those late documents because people in the fourth century thought they were really by the Apostles, or do you realize they are by criminals with no sense of morality that are trying to push theories they just made up?
People who are part of the rapture theorist cult will lie to you blithely that Revelation was written by the still living Apostle John in 90 AD. That is based on a hundred year old theory that was never accepted widely or for very long. Current scholarship places Revelation as maybe the earliest of the NT books written. The reason they like the later date is because it says that the temple in Jerusalem was already destroyed and so Revelation could not be about that event, and was ignored by the writer as of no consequence, an outlook that goes through the whole theological system of the rapture theorists.
Also this late date of Revelation allows a gap to fit in other books obviously written at a late date. Paul is now generally thought to have disappeared from history by 68 AD. Books like the Timothy letters were written after that, and after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 AD. People then had settled into a long term existence of the church, after the expected apocalyptic even already happened and only resulted in the demise of that major source of religious competition.
The point of all this discussion is that the rabit support for Zionism within Christianity is based on a theory devised over 200 years ago, which was using ideas that were accepted in the infancy of modern biblical science, but does not hold up to the current understanding of the Bible. So built into this dogma held by the supporters of this theoretical system is a disdain for real biblical scholarship resulting in a sever ignorance of the most basic ideas held by those outside that particular cult.

reply to post by jmdewey60


And so you avoid the question completely only to answer for all to see .

reply to post by SimonPeter

And so you avoid the question completely only to answer for all to see .

You are quoting some weird creed that you made up that would only make sense to people in your cult.
I believe in normal Christianity that does not twist Bible verses to say things that it never intended to say.

And even this line that I am quoting that you wrote makes no sense.
A normal person can not agree with anything you write.
Why don't you have your mother come down into the basement and write a post that is in understandable English.
If English is your third or fourth language, then sorry, but I doubt that your cult extends past the US 'Bible Belt'.

If this post seams mean, then what do you expect when you deliberately provoke me and try to denigrate my character because I disagree with a cult that I understand all too well and believe was created to destroy traditional Christianity that has existed since the time of the Apostles.

reply to post by jmdewey60


If you can not confess that Jesus is your savior in public then he will not confess you are his .

reply to post by SimonPeter

If you can not confess that Jesus is your savior in public then he will not confess you are his .

Saying that I am a Christian is confessing that Jesus is my saviour.
What you are doing is making a cult inspired creed to determine who a "real" Christian is.
If I cared what men thought of me rather than God, I would be in a cult like you are.

reply to post by jmdewey60


If the King James Bible is a cult I guess I am guilty .
I have I believe formed an opinion that you do not subscribe to Jesus coming for his Elect or to rule during the Millennium Reign . You believe all this has already happened or discount books of the bible that states such .

Some how some people have determined that Paul was a fraud . I am very sure that the Jews want to impress that on us because the Talmudic Jews oppose the Jesus who came to deliver us . They regard the Goy and Gentile as serfs or cattle . I am sure those people have included in their prejudices any of the New Testament letters that support the Gospel of Jesus and the return of their redeemer as a whole .

I do believe the account of Jesus Christ's birth, life,and death and resurrection as stated in the book of Matthew . And although some don't I do believe Christ is coming back to save Israel and for his elect as described in the bible and that the earth will be destroyed with fire .

I also believe the Protocols of Zion that were supposedly proved to be a fraud a 100 years ago have proved themselves to be absolutely true by the evidence of their fulfillment by the people who denied them to start with ..

reply to post by SimonPeter

So which one is it?
Jesus returns to redeem?
The earth is destroyed by fire?
Jesus to rule during the Millennium.

Whenever you get that straightened out, let me know.

. . . some people have determined that Paul was a fraud

There is a difference between thinking that Paul is a fraud, and thinking some frauds wrote "letters" and made them look like Paul wrote them.

The reason that I brought up the "second coming" business is that your belief that the modern so-called state merely calling itself Israel is in fact the exact same thing as what is described in the Old Testament, and has to be so for Jesus' return.
My point is this thing being called an eschatology which includes an Israel, is based wholly on theory, and not the authentic parts of the Bible.
What I believe is that the predictions made by Jesus and the Apostles were fulfilled, and some people decided it was not really as nice as they wanted, so ignored all that and created an expectation of something "better".
One day all these pretend prophets are going to say, "Hey, you know that Rapture and all that stuff we told you decades ago was going to happen? Well, it isn't, but we were successful in one aspect, there is Israel and thanks to your believing, they have their rebuilt temple. So we decided that was really the purpose of all that eschatology, and now everyone needs to pay homage to the temple and we will just take it out of your paychecks.
Oh, and by the way, all that Christianity, well, that did get raptured, but without any actual Christians. Good news, God says, 'No problem, just worship the Rabbinical Council from now on.' ".

reply to post by jmdewey60


If you have just asked me about the order of the return of Jesus , harvest of his elect and Millennial reign and also the destruction of the earth by fire you have not read the KJV . Or you don't think I have . Sequentially ordered return for his Elect , Millennial Reign , Armageddon destruction of earth by fire .

Now for Israel proper named in the spot for Christ return .
Zechariah chapter 14 verse 4 " And his feet will stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the East , and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and oward the west ". This is the Lord this scripture is talking about , and no such of a thing has happened to the Mount of Olives yet .
verse 9 " And the Lord shall be King over all the earth ".
Now is Zechariah also suspected of being a fraud?

Surely you have read this?

reply to post by SimonPeter

. . . you have not read the KJV

Oh, is that the magical version, where any other does not work?
Aren't you a bit suspicious of a theory that falls apart as soon as you look at a modern translation?

. . . return for his Elect . . .

Your whole theory is built on deception.
The gathering of the elect is the creation of the church, Gods Chosen People, after the old, obsolete and corrupt system of the Jerusalem temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
Your theory switches it to make it look like Jesus was talking about something else.

Millennial Reign

We are in it now. The church is free to prosper and thrive.

Armageddon

Which is a reference to the throne of the earth deity who gives a stern talking-to with the kings of the earth, thus demonstrating His sovereignty, where the old mountain demon god lived, on Mount Hermon.

destruction of earth by fire .

Sorry, but no such thing. If you are thinking about 2 Peter, then he says earthly governments that are against God will be destroyed.

This is the Lord this scripture is talking about

So how does that have anything to do with Jesus?

reply to post by jmdewey60


You sound just like a Watchtower man . And from what you just stated we are not defining Christianity as the same thing .

Good Day

reply to post by SimonPeter

You sound just like a Watchtower man . And from what you just stated we are not defining Christianity as the same thing .

I think it is just that you have a problem demonstrating how anything you claim is true.
You have what amounts to one word answers that you expect others to interpret the same way as you do.
What I was saying there in my last post is pretty much normal in today's theology, which probably looks strange to you, reading a 600 year old translation and 200 year old eschatology.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Dear jmdewey60,

Thanks, good post. You've presented an interesting and controversial hypothesis with some scholarly support, but I have to wonder, have you perhaps overstated your case?

People who are part of the rapture theorist cult will lie to you blithely that Revelation was written by the still living Apostle John in 90 AD. That is based on a hundred year old theory that was never accepted widely or for very long. Current scholarship places Revelation as maybe the earliest of the NT books written. The reason they like the later date is because it says that the temple in Jerusalem was already destroyed and so Revelation could not be about that event,

I can't address what the rapture theorists believe or their motivations, but to call them liars seems a bit harsh. Even if you were right, "mistaken" would be as far as one could go. But are you right?

The Catholic position is that the book was probably written by John the Apostle, near 89 A.D. That alone makes it widely accepted. As for a 100 year old theory, I don't think the Church has ever taught that it was written in the late 60s.
www.usccb.org...
You're right that some scholars prefer the earlier date for the writing of the book, but to say that is the position of modern scholarship seems to be out-running the facts. Some do, many don't.

it is discovered that some of the new testament was written in fact not by the Apostles, but forgers who just liked the idea of having their works noticed because they claimed to be written by the Apostles, but after they are dead and gone and can't complain about it.

First, what do you mean by "some?" Most? A few books? A couple of verses in one book? Second, if you mean by "forgers" the scribes who took down dictation, then Ok, maybe. But there isn't much, if any, support for the idea that any of the Gospels were written after the death of the assigned Apostle.

or do you realize they are by criminals with no sense of morality that are trying to push theories they just made up?

Sorry, there is no way in the world you can prove that. In this case your theory would have very few Christian, or even serious, scholars, in support. I have to disagree strongly with the theory you mention.

Also this late date of Revelation allows a gap to fit in other books obviously written at a late date. Paul is now generally thought to have disappeared from history by 68 AD. Books like the Timothy letters were written after that, and after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 AD.

I agree here that there is evidence that First and Second Timothy, and Titus were writtten after Paul's death, but there is also evidence opposed to it. The question is unresolved.

The point of all this discussion is that the rabit support for Zionism within Christianity

Do you mean some portions of Protestant Christianity? Severe ignorance? Cult? Disregard for serious Biblical scholarship? That's certainly not the case for the Catholic Church. Which prominent Protestant denominations teach rabid zionism, or is it only some famous preachers and their followers?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I can't address what the rapture theorists believe or their motivations, but to call them liars seems a bit harsh. Even if you were right, "mistaken" would be as far as one could go. But are you right?

I may be personifying there.
Specifically I meant what I said in an earlier post but don't want to go over it every time. I mean the form of Dispensationalism that was created by John Nelson Darby, and I meant him lying through whoever perpetuates that same invention of his. I do believe that it was intentionally created to deceive Christians in order to get their support for the Zionist's plan to capture most or all of the Country of Palestine to create a Jewish utopia.

reply to post by charles1952

The Catholic position is that the book was probably written by John the Apostle, near 89 A.D. That alone makes it widely accepted. As for a 100 year old theory, I don't think the Church has ever taught that it was written in the late 60s.
www.usccb.org...
You're right that some scholars prefer the earlier date for the writing of the book, but to say that is the position of modern scholarship seems to be out-running the facts. Some do, many don't.

There is no "Catholic position".
They just don't do that.
What you see in the article that you linked to is a statement "The Book of Revelation had its origin in a time of crisis . . ."
Then at the end, another related statement, "The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians."
The theory would go like, "The crises would be persecution, since it seems to dwell on that sort of theme, with people being described as dying by being beheaded. So let's look at Roman history to see when maybe something like that was going on. Oh, here is one that looks good."
That was a discussion that happened a long time ago, in the modern era, when people started looking at the Bible critically.
Now we understand the circumstances better, and we realize the "crises" was one over beliefs inside the church itself.
Also we understand that the supposed persecution of Domitian was not what it was believed to be back when someone picked that particular episode.
The time of the crises that Revelation was concerned about was very early in the history of the church and may have been a dispute that started before Paul ever talked about it.

reply to post by grimghost


All claims of "divine right" about anything should be rejected out of hand. Unless god appears to the masses himself and issues instructions. Even then, they would only be up for consideration.

None of which helps the current problems in the mid east. One day perhaps, the parties might learn to share peacefully. That does appear the only option.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Zionist Jews, ones maybe not self-identified in that way, but at least support Israel, say, "Well, I have friends who live there and I used to live there."
If they went back to Brooklyn, or Florida, then no one would be sitting around worrying about what is going on over there.
That is the only answer.

reply to post by charles1952

First, what do you mean by "some?" Most? A few books? A couple of verses in one book? Second, if you mean by "forgers" the scribes who took down dictation, then Ok, maybe. But there isn't much, if any, support for the idea that any of the Gospels were written after the death of the assigned Apostle.

Rather than going into all of that, my suggestion is that you buy or borrow a copy of Forged by Part Ehrman. He is someone who is specialised in the study of the ancient Greek texts of the New Testament.
You can get a Kindle version rather inexpensively and what I have, and you could read it in three hours maybe if you are not distracted, and you can get a better idea of the situation. I started my own study of the subject years ago because of some discrepancies that I found in Colossians, then went on from there, but it is a bit tedious to go into on a thread not devoted to that topic. I go along basically with Ehrman, so I am not like some suggest here, picking and choosing what to discard based on if it supports my theories. I base my theories on what can be best supported, and that includes not looking ignorant by quoting basically forged material written after any Apostles were still writing or even alive.

reply to post by charles1952

Do you mean some portions of Protestant Christianity? Severe ignorance? Cult? Disregard for serious Biblical scholarship? That's certainly not the case for the Catholic Church. Which prominent Protestant denominations teach rabid zionism, or is it only some famous preachers and their followers?

I don't mean Catholics and sorry but I always think that should be obvious.
The major denominations, I don't mean them either.
What I do mean is non-denominational, or the vague term, Evangelical, which do not belong to a single denomination but sometimes form loose associations. Generally, Dispensationalism acts as a cult that ties to infiltrate all churches to gain adherents. They are not as successful at that in the major denominations but are in independent churches where they are more susceptible to people offering support if they promote a certain type of theology, and since this is in the conspiracy sub-forum, then yes, I believe it is a conspiracy to lend financial support and other inducements to churches or pastors who agree to tow the line, and it is backed by institutions and foundations that are fronts for zionists and they in turn have unlimited funds from the bankers.

reply to post by jmdewey60
[
Hi JM Dewey

You wrote QUOTE

" Since you seem to have an interest in the Greek text, you should look at the Greek version of this quote. You should notice a discrepancy when you go word for word, where the English translation skips a lot.

If you read it including all the words, you notice that what the men are describing was a mode of transportation,
"by the way that you see him go, he will continue going in that same way", to heaven, meaning not just the heaven where if you were to look hard enough that you could see him up there, but all the way to another heaven, presumably where God is.

So the "in that same way" is not describing a second such trip, it is describing how that same trip continues beyond where they lost sight of him..."

UNQUOTE

I’m not sure where your confusion is in Acts 1:9-11 [ἐλεύσεται = ‘he shall arrive’ see Luke 20:16-18 for the use of the same word: ελευσεται )

Also see the Middle Greek Participle πορευόμενον = ‘departing’, ‘travelling’, ‘going away’, ‘leaving’, ‘dying’ etc.

Here is the Greek text of Luke-Acts 1:9-11

οἳ καὶ εἶπαν• ἄνδρες Γαλιλαῖοι, τί ἑστήκατε [ἐμ]βλέποντες εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; =
Lit. "And they said: Men of Galilee, why are you standing looking up into the sky?"

οὗτος ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀναλημφθεὶς ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οὕτως ἐλεύσεται ὃν τρόπον ἐθεάσασθε αὐτὸν πορευόμενον εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. =
Lit. ‘this [same] ho Iesous who who has been taken up from you into the sky will return in the same way you have seen him departing into the sky.’

Admittedly the hand written copies of the Greek text do not always match word for word - see Codex D (Bezae Biglot) which omits the phrase (en ton ouranon = 'into the sky') at the end.

The author of the 3rd canonical Greek Gospel and Acts was the same writer/compiler ('Luke' whoever he was) and we assume that he was later than e.g. the 2nd canonical Gospel, for even he admits ('inasmuch as many have already written down accounts of what has passed among us...it seemed good to me also to set down in order...") and probably wrote c. 95 CE - at a time when the Parousia was seen to be 'delayed'

The Greek words place into the two angels' mouths in Acts 1:9-11 ('Men of Galilee why are you (still) standing there gazing in to the sky...?') seem to fit the generation following the destruction of Jerusalem - when the Parousia was seen not to be as imminent as e.g. Paul would believe - and seem affirm that although ho Iesous will indeed one day come back, he just won't come back any time soon..

And just because an early work is a literary forgery (‘pious fraud’, as are most of the NT Greek books except perhaps some Pauline fragments e,g, Romans, Galatians, 1st Thessalonians, Philemon & 1 Corinthians) that is, a book or epistle that was not actually written by the person it claims to have been written by does not mean that the (piously or not) forged document does not at all reflect real beliefs / preconceptions of many of the earliest messianic Jews (and later, Christians) – the fraudulent Christian writings often tell us more about other variant forms of the many Christianities out there in the wild in the 1st 200 years of its existence than those sects that later became regarded as 'ortho-dox', i.e. the Iranaean camp after 180 CE.

So although scholarship would lump e.g. Titus and 2nd Thessalonians as later forgeries written ‘in Paul’s name’ (or 2 Peter, piously written in Greek in the name of ‘Kephah’) they DO reflect an early Nazorean & Pauline tradition that the executed i.e. a failed Messiah would return in triumph to judge the sinners which is found elsewhere in the NT e.g. in Luke/Acts.

But even in the 'non-forged' Greek NT Pauline epistles, (c. 51 to 58 CE) we catch a glimpse of this earlier belief in a returning victorious Messiah at the End of Days

See 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (two epistles which are thought to be mainly 'authentic' except for an odd interpolation or two) - where Paul expected the Parousia to come quickly i.e. before his death.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-1 7, Paul twice uses the expression,

'WE who are still alive, who are left until the Parousia ('coming') of the Lord', which may be taken to mean 'we Christians who survive until the Parousia'.

A similar idea may be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:51f., where the 'we' that is emphasised in verse 52b ('WE shall all be changed') indicates that Paul placed himself among the survivors at the Parousia.

These non-forged epistles of Paul (e.g. Romans, 1 Corinithians, Galatians, Philemon & 1 Thessalonians) all seem to share a common literary style & outlook - and are among the earliest writings in the canonical Greek new Testament - so it is clear that the idea of a 'second coming' of the first failed/executed Messiah 'in the last days' was part of the earliest Kerygma of the earliest church & not added later.

reply to post by Sigismundus

Hi Sigismundus,

These non-forged epistles of Paul (e.g. Romans, 1 Corinithians, Galatians, Philemon & 1 Thessalonians) all seem to share a common literary style & outlook - and are among the earliest writings in the canonical Greek new Testament - so it is clear that the idea of a 'second coming' of the first failed/executed Messiah 'in the last days' was part of the earliest Kerygma of the earliest church & not added later.

Before I go out and spend a bunch of money on books that may be strongly partisan, I wonder:

Would you perhaps recommend a book or three dealing in an unsanitized way, with the origins of Christianity?
I'm mainly looking for between 16 CE and 136 CE .

Neo-Ebionite views seem all to easily found. I'm looking for a different point of view.