AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Partition Jerusalem?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Ron,

Ask yourself why the Torah and prophets had long predicted the total destruction of Jerusalem, final judgment on the Jews, dispersion among the Gentiles of the ethnic/unbelieving Jews wandering around like lost pups and why did Jesus tell the unbelieving Jews, "The kingdom will be taken from you and given to a nation that bears the fruit of it" and then it happened in 70 AD?

Think maybe you misunderstood something? Those promises were to authentic Jews of faith, Abraham, Issac and Jacob and the NT insists Christians are the heirs of Abraham, not unbelieving Jews. Ethnic Jews alone were not the heirs of the Palestinian promise, remember WE'RE Abraham's heirs?

This thing isn't race based, that's a pagan concept of yore. The only promises to ethnic Jews were conditional and Christ fulfilled those things for us all, they failed and got "fired" by Him, all except those who believed. That's why there was no Israel for 2000 years isn't it and this thing is no more ancient Israel than I'm King David?

Quad,

Cause we wised up and figured out those promises were types for the final eschatological Israel which are the people who believe in Christ, not Abraham's genetic kids.

Jesus made it clear that counted for nothing in the Gospel accounts as did Paul in several letters(Paul literally used a pejorative Greek term for poop in detailing this in Philippians chapter 3, skubila).

The "land of promise" became the universe in the NT (kosmos in the text), not that piece of crap dump over there. We got it via faith, not murdering and not stealing.

William,

You'd do well to read of 1967 in the west bank. No Jews lived there in 1967. I'm discussing the west bank. They have since been in a campaign of theft nationally.

It's theft, it's cruelty and it's wrong. Only your racism towards Arabs and Muslims( which I shared until around 2008) allows you to defend one ethnic group stealing from another like this. If the Arabs were on the strong end of this displacement you'd be screaming just like you ought to.
Actually, Palladin, I am quite aware of the history of the West Bank in 1967. If you recall, Abdul Nasser called for the destruction of Israel and launched attacks on it. The West Bank was under the auspices of Jordan - but only two countries in the world acknowledged that. As the Arab countries built up their armies to invade Israel, Israel petitioned Jordon's King Hussein that it would not attack the West Bank if Jordon did not attack first. Jordan then signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt and allowed Iraq's army to gather on its border. Iraqi President Ar’ef said: “our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the face of the map….”

The Israeli armed forces took out the Egyptian air force on June 5th. Egypt then lied to Jordan saying they had not lost to Israel, which emboldened Jordan to attack through the West bank.

Jordan launched immediate multiple attacks on Israel:
  • civilian suburbs of Tel-Aviv were shelled by artillery;
  • Israel’s largest military airfield, Ramat David, was shelled;
  • Jordanian warplanes attacked the central Israeli towns of Netanya and Kfar Sava;
  • thousands of mortar shells rained down on West Jerusalem hitting civilian locations indiscriminately, including the Hadassah Hospital and the Mount Zion Church;
  • Israel’s parliament building (the Knesset) and the Prime Minister’s office, each in Israeli-controlled West Jerusalem, were targeted;
  • 20 Israelis died in these attacks; 1000 were wounded. 900 buildings in West Jerusalem were damaged.
It was only after Jordan's attack that Israel attacked back - and won.

No apologies. Israel had de facto control of the land via conquest over an invading army. Nothing stolen, but won in war against a force that attacked first. To my thinking it is Israeli land and they can keep it.
(05-29-2012, 03:58 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: [ -> ]No Quadrat--NEW Jerusalem (currently in Heaven) belongs to Christians. Actually it belongs to the faithful of all ages.

Including the Muslims.
William,

International law gives Israel 10% due to being invaded. They would have avoided 95% of all the dead Jews via terrorism since 1967 had they simply accepted what the law allows.

Instead, they've decided with the urging of Reagan because unfortunately Ron was a Christian zionist to "settle the land" like we did here. Problem is they don't have new immigrants like us to keep fueling the drive.

The west bank is not Israel, they don't even have the balls to proclaim it so nor do they even claim it is theirs in some less than "totally Israeli sovereignty" paradigm as you do for them.

They just send their tanks and people in and displace more Arabs from time to time and act shocked when some Arabs don't take it like cowards.
Pat, I have to say I am glad that you exist as you do, as you're one of the few honest Christians that doesn't kiss Israel's ass like they are nearly sacred, and isn't some new age Christian Zionist. It is a breath of fresh air.

I like them, admire them even, but I really don't give a fig to waste money or fight wars for them, and certainly don't think they have any other rights above other people in that area.

How far some of us have changed. Who says wisdom isn't accumulated over time?
(05-29-2012, 08:58 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]...International law gives Israel 10% due to being invaded.

Please explain what law you are presenting. Fait accompli is the means by which all the nations of the world have come into existence. Franz Oppenheimer was a socialist - but he was correct on the historical creation of nation states. A country can voluntarily give back land that is conquered, as Great Britain and the U.S. have done, but law that speciifies the results of war are pretty much imaginary. A country sues for peace to create a contract for survival. That contract is usually one-sided and harsh - but it is what the nations agree to.

In the movie, The Mouse that Roared, the bankrupt Grand Duchy of Fenwick wanted a war with America so they could lose, because countries defeated by the U.S. in war were always propped up afterwards.


Little Chucky Shumer, when pressed, doesn't know the Bamster's position on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obI1jiUBR...r_embedded
But then again, there is a lot Chucky, and Obama for that matter, don't understand. For example: Exclusive: Rivlin says Obama doesn't understand Middle East. And he is really correct in this. Obama doesn't really understand the middle east. However, he understands Anti-Colonialism, and that is all that really matters to him.

And in good Anti-colonial thinking, Israel is a minor colonial power, which is just a chip off the Euro-American colonial block.
Palladin, the destruction of Jerusalem/Israel was not the end of the world. The prophecies of the Old Testament, and Jesus' prophecies in Matthew 24, were not always confined to one or the other, but had dual application. You can see this from the questions that Jesus' disciples asked, that He was answering:

"1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matthew 24:1-3)

Most of the errors of Biblical scholarship result from refusing to take the text as it reads, and understand what it is clearly implying. Jesus' disciples obviously thought the destruction of the Temple would be the same as the end of the world. That does not mean they were right. Jesus also warned them to be ready for the time when Jerusalem would be "compassed with armies" in the parallel account in Luke: "21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:20, 21-27)

Why is it hard for some people to understand this? Clearly, Jesus was saying the destruction of Israel/Jerusalem would not be the end of the world. There would still be "the times of the Gentiles."

All the prophecies of the Bible are in perfect harmony, and make perfect sense, when you take them together for what they say, and do not try to make them fit some preconceived theories.
When Mitt Romney visited Israel recently, he explicitly affirmed that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel. Obama can speak out of the side of his mouth trying to assure everyone that America remains an ally of Israel, but you can be sure that the Israelis know who is really a friend of Israel.
Pages: 1 2