The Church of Scotland tries to lie saying Israel doesn't belong to the Jews.

[Dan193]

More proof how the Church of Scotland will sell their soul to the devil.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=9031
'Jews shouldn't take God's promise to Abraham literally'
May 3, 2013

In new report titled "The Inheritance of Abraham? The 'Promised Land,''' the Church of Scotland, once a staunch supporter of the Jews' right to their ancient homeland, says Israel does not belong to the Jewish people.
Amir Mizroch

In a new report titled "The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the 'Promised Land,''' the Church of Scotland, once a staunch supporter of the Jews' right to their ancient homeland, casts serious doubt on the biblical Jewish claim to the land.

The report is a culmination of more than a decade of increasingly strident anti-Zionism and pro-Palestinian activism by the church, especially by its local Palestinian Christian chapters.

"Promises about the land of Israel were never intended to be taken literally, or as applying to a defined geographical territory," it concludes. "The 'promised land' in the Bible is not a place, so much as a metaphor of how things ought to be among the people of God. This 'promised land' can be found, or built, anywhere."

Local Jewish leaders fear that if the church adopts the document at its annual general assembly, it may be become official church policy, the London Jewish Chronicle reported. The Church of Scotland's annual general assembly is to vote on the report later this month,

In the report, the church states that there has been a "widespread assumption" by many Christians and Jews that the Bible supports an essentially Jewish state of Israel.

"This assumption of biblical support is based on views of promises about land in the Hebrew Bible, and that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, as well as the fulfillment of biblical prophets such as Ezekiel, who spoke about 'the barren mountains of Israel' becoming fruitful and 'the ruined towns' being rebuilt as the people returned from exile. These views are disputed," the report says. It adds that the New Testament provides help in answering some of the "difficult questions" that arise from these disputed assumptions.

On God's promise to Abraham to make the Land of Israel a home for the Jewish people ("To your offspring I will give this land," Genesis 12:7), the Church of Scotland says that a purely literal reading does show that God promised the land to Abraham and his descendents, but that the exact geography of the land is unclear, and in any case the land was given "conditionally to the Jewish people, on the understanding the land is God's, given in trust to be cared for and lived in according to God's instruction."

The report then quotes from a slew of anti-Zionist writers who argue that Israel and Zionism are acting "unjustly" toward the Palestinian population on the land, in an effort to make the point that the current State of Israel is not acting according to God's instructions.

The New Testament, the report states, contains a "radical re-interpretation" of the concepts of "Israel," "temple," "Jerusalem," and "land."

"The boundaries of the land are described in different ways in different situations," the report says. "Abraham's descendants, 'numerous as the stars in the sky', will receive 'all these lands,' and through them 'all nations on earth will be blessed'" (Genesis 26:4). This suggests a more inclusive picture than "the land of Canaan" (Genesis 12:5) or even "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates" (Genesis 15:18).

"The lack of detailed archaeological evidence supports the view that the range of scriptural material makes it inappropriate to try to use the Hebrew scriptures to determine an area of land meant exclusively for the Jewish people," the report says.

Making a theological leap from this geographical "lack of detailed archaeological evidence," the report then concludes that "the new 'place' where God is found is wherever people gather in the name of Jesus. If Jesus is indeed the 'yes' to all God's promises, the promise to Abraham about land is fulfilled through the impact of Jesus, not by restoration of land to the Jewish people."

The church admits that from the early 19th century, some influential Christians encouraged the concept of the land of Israel being promised to the Jews. It may well have been a church minister, the Rev. Alexander Keith, who coined the phrase "a land without people for a people without land," the report states.

Scottish Council of Jewish Communities Director Ephraim Borowski said the church should withdraw the report.

"On behalf of the Jewish community of Scotland, we call upon the church to withdraw it [the report] from the forthcoming general assembly. If the Church cannot build bridges, can it at least refrain from burning them?" Borowski told the London Jewish Chronicle newspaper.

Board of Deputies Vice President Jonathan Arkush said, "The document ... appears to have been produced with no consultation with the Scottish or national Jewish community. It is littered with misrepresentations of Jewish history, values and beliefs, as well as basic factual errors.

"It is an ignorant and tendentious document masquerading as a theological statement. The church has done a deep disservice to itself by producing a document without any regard to the trust, respect and dialogue on which interfaith relations should be based."

 
   

[Dan193]

Basically what the church of Scotland is saying is that the Arabs can have 22 states and their can be 57 Muslim countries but their cant be one tiny Jewish state.

[mord]

Just because it calls itself a Church doesn't make it one. You know the saying i sleep in garage that doesn't make me a car or truck

[TruthSpreader]

You're telling me that the Muslims can have 57 states and the Jews can't even have one country?!

This isn't a church. It's a fraud.

[Irish Zionist]

Basically what the church of Scotland is saying is that the Arabs can have 22 states and their can be 57 Muslim countries but their cant be one tiny Jewish state.

Actually the Muslims have 66 nations, not 57.
And this so called church can disappear into the darkness from wense it came, for going against Gd's people and mocking Gd.

[Zelhar]

Is that the "old" type of theological antisemitism coming from a "new" style progressive sort of church ?

[Ephraim Ben Noach]

Here is their facebook page ...
 https://m.facebook.com/233258850032623/timeline/story?ut=2&hash=9205131900693207183&wstart=0&wend=1370069999&pagefilter=1&ustart&__user=100004004387700

[TruthSpreader]

Actually the Muslims have 66 nations, not 57.
And this so called church can disappear into the darkness from wense it came, for going against Gd's people and mocking Gd.

Very true. Any so-called 'church' that dares mocks God and his people isn't a church.

[JTFenthusiast2]

Is that the "old" type of theological antisemitism coming from a "new" style progressive sort of church ?

Bingo!!!

[Dr. Dan]

Of course it doesn't belong to the Jews. It belongs to the Scots who were the original Joos.

[Mein Koran]

The Church of Scotland is a self-hating church so this doesn't surprise me one bit. For example they recently said that in areas where mosques are under construction, the muslims can use their church buildings to hold services. They took it even further and removed all the crosses and pictures of Jesus on the cross because Muslimes don't believe he was crucified! Also like deformed Judaism they also have a significant of feminist pastors and gay/lesbian/transgender pastors. Yemach shmo to the "church" of Scotland!

[kyel]

I always wondered how Neteuri Karta and other anti-Israel Jews, knowing that Gd is in charge of history, can read the Torah and Tanakh  multiple times with clear prophecies that have been fulfilled from the recreation of Israel, and be against what would be Gds will?

[mord]

From  the leftist Jewish paper the Forward they allow philistines to comment           http://forward.com/articles/175926/church-of-scotland-denies-jewish-claim-to-land-of/   




Church of Scotland Denies Jewish Claim to Land of Israel
Report Attacks Scriptural and Political Claims
haaretz

By Anshel Pfeffer (Haaretz)
Published May 02, 2013.

    Print
    Email
    Share Share

Related

    Scottish Protests Dog Israeli Dance Troupe
    Scottish Student Expelled for Insulting Israeli Flag
    The Zen of Kosher Scotch

A report by the Church of Scotland, published this week, denies any special privilege for the Jewish people in the land of Israel. The church, which in recent years has jettisoned its once philosemitic character, opened a wide rift with the Scottish Jewish community with the report. Among other controversial statements, the report argues that, “Christians should not be supporting any claims by Jews, or any other people, to an exclusive or even privileged divine right to possess particular territory.”

The report, titled “The inheritance of Abraham? A report on the ‘promised land’”, was prepared for the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, to be held in two weeks. It is the latest in a series of documents published over the last decade criticizing Zionism and the Christians that support it.

The report acknowledges the fact that the Church of Scotland was once a believer in the right of the Jews to the ancient land of Israel and a Scottish minister, Alexander Keith, may even have coined the famous phrase: “A land without a people, for a people without a land.”

However, the latest report makes clear such affection is a thing of the past. It analyzes the various scriptural and theological claims of Jews to the land and rejects those verses in which the land is promised to the children of Abraham. Furthermore, it dismisses the “belief among some Jewish people that they have a right to the land of Israel as a compensation for the suffering of the Holocaust.”

 

     

The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Comments (46)
 
   

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
+25
Michael_Welbeck's avatar - Go to profile

Michael_Welbeck · 1 day ago
These are always ready to fall back to the Middle Ages.
They don't get it. The Jews do not claim Israel, they have it!
Report
Reply
+15
dmo65's avatar - Go to profile

dmo65 · 1 day ago
Next time Braveheart is on I'll be rooting for Longshanks.
Report
Reply
+7
's avatar - Go to profile

Bert Schlossberg · 1 day ago
That's right. The Jews do have the land. They have the land because God brought them back. He brought them back because He is a faithful God. Jews can rightfully proclaim. God has brought me back and I thank Him for that. Shame on the Scottish Church and all the other churces, that are so faddish, and so lacking in a backbone, and so devoid of the truth they once held to. In following Jesus Christ, there is a lot more to it than being led around by the nose by "the latest". I think Rabbi Lau, former chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Israel, can teach the Scottish church a lesson or two. When Rabin was ready to give up to the Palestinian authority, just like that, the tomb of Rachel at Bethlehem. Rabbi Lau rebuked him by saying, " You do not abandon your Mother!" Rabin didn't. Fickle Church with no real depth and no real commitment!
Report
Reply
+14
's avatar - Go to profile

@josephinebacon · 1 day ago
As someone who lives half a mile from where William Wallace was executed I am sorry that the Elders of the Church of Scotland never read the Tanach. We are not just the children of Abraham, we are the Children of Israel – geddit? The clue is in the name!
Report
Reply
+13
EAstarte's avatar - Go to profile

EAstarte · 1 day ago
The Children of Abraham are also the Arabs, so I assume the Church of Scotland rejects their claims to the land too.
Report
Reply
2 replies · active 17 minutes ago
-2
's avatar - Go to profile

Llyn Kidner-Williams · 19 hours ago
you are being stupid.
Report
Reply
+1
Zubelee's avatar - Go to profile

Zubelee · 17 minutes ago
And you are the dumbest.George Zimmerman isn't an Hispanic Jew his mother is Hispanic and Father is of German descent,BTW what a dumb comment you made here http://www.yourblackworld.net/2012/03/black-news/...

FROM YOUR COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

[

Llyn Kidner-Williams Reply

March 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm

This is without doubt one of the most disturbing out and out, cold blooded, planned murders I have read about in a very long time. From the time that Zimmerman, which is a Jewish name (he could be a Hispanic Jew), set eyes on Trayvon Martin, he had made up his mind that this young Black Man (who would not have been walking slowly as Zimmerman claimed because he wanted to get back for the beginning of the game), was going to be his prey for the night so he called 911 and we know the rest.
I read tonight that Zimmerman is in hiding because he has had death threats……. what happened to Mr. Bigshot? The Sanford Police need to hide their heads in shame. I pray that the FBI take over this investigation and that this piece of garbage is charged with first degree murder.
I would just like to say something about my support, and I have been writing and signing petitions, etc. regarding this terrible travesty of justice. I am not an American and I am not Black but I am from a minority (Palestinian/Welsh) and I have in my family Fillipino granchildren, Ghanaian cousins, and many other ethnic groups but it does not matter which ones we belong to because we need to stand together when these crimes happen to our people. It is the only way that we will become strong enough to defeat racism completely and I am happy to do it because I was brought up in mixed family that has only grown more mixed over the years and we have grown in strength through knowledge. Let us keep up the fight for the Martin family. Love to all Llyn.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_...

George Michael Zimmerman was born on October 5, 1983, in Manassas, Virginia,[52] and is the son of Gladys (née Mesa) Zimmerman, who was born in Peru,[2] and Robert Zimmerman, Sr., a retired Virginia magistrate.[53][54] He was raised Catholic[55] in a family that his father has described as "multiracial;" his father is an American of German descent[56] and his mother is Peruvian with some black ancestry through her Afro-Peruvian maternal grandfather.[55][Note 1] Zimmerman's voter registration record lists him as Hispanic.[57][58]
Report
Reply
+18
Egregious644's avatar - Go to profile

Egregious644 · 1 day ago
And Scotland doesn't have any right to self-determination, either. The English defeated the Scots, so they should just become British and stop making believe they are otherwise.
Report
Reply
3 replies · active 1 hour ago
-5
's avatar - Go to profile

Llyn Kidner-Williams · 19 hours ago       Philistine dog
every ethnicity has the right to self-determination. Jews are merely a cult or religion not an ethnicity.
Report
Reply
+2
busterbobby's avatar - Go to profile

busterbobby · 8 hours ago
Your ignorance is alarming. Jews are the utimate ethnicity. One is a Jew through matrilineal descent, regardless of belief or non-belief. Judaism is not a religion at all in the typical sense. Jews have a shared sense of national history, a shared sense of destiny, a shared sense of peoplehood, and have spoken the same language for thousands of years. You might do a bit of research before you open your pie hole.
Report
Reply
+2
's avatar - Go to profile

Lloyd Oestreicher · 1 hour ago
WRONG. DO A DNA TEST. THERE ARE CHINESE JEWS ETHIOPIAN JEWS, JAPANESE AND JAVENESE JEWS, AND ALL LOOK DIFFERENT. WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON IS THE JEWISH DNA. EVEN THE SEMITIC ARABS. JUDAISM IS NOT A CULT, ANYMORE THAN IS CHRISTIANITY.
Report
Reply
+8
's avatar - Go to profile

@GeorgeFredlund · 1 day ago
This is probably attributable to the prolonged consumption of some rather bad haggis by the church leaders. Perhaps this will sort itself out after they grasp both ears and give a firm tug, thereby removing their collective heads from their collective arse.
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 13 minutes ago
+1
Zubelee's avatar - Go to profile

Zubelee · 13 minutes ago
 
+7
no_comm3nt's avatar - Go to profile

no_comm3nt · 1 day ago
Theological musing. It has been explained to me several times from different Christian denominations, and yet I completely fail to understand. The Christian view is that their "New" testament completely succeeds the Tanakh, rendering it invalid. And yet it is Christians who pick and choose from the very same Tanakh to: advocate for putting up the 10 commandments in public schools; claim many parts of Vayikra still pertain as to who is "an abomination"; and that Yesha'yahu and Yechezkel predict Jesus of Nazareth as Moshiach.

If I take them at their word that they reject the Tanakh in its entirety, then their position on Jews having no claim to Israel makes sense. I guess. If I take it as their history of cherry-picking, well I suppose it still makes sense.

However, if they like the10 commandments, there's a question right at the beginning:

אני ה 'אלהיכם אשר הוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים מבית העבדים.

_From_ Egypt ... _To_ where? There is a theological, logical, and grammatical expectation of a safe landing place. A land. Perhaps a land that was Promised? Dare I say a Promised Land? I doubt that land was the Jewish Autonomous Oblast' in Siberia...
End theological musing.
Report
Reply
-3
DaveedR's avatar - Go to profile

DaveedR · 1 day ago
Religious texts of any faith should not be used to justify land ownership. That responsibility is covered by international law.
Report
Reply
7 replies · active 38 minutes ago
+9
dmo65's avatar - Go to profile

dmo65 · 1 day ago
Then I assume the Saudis will be handing over the keys to Mecca and Medina.

I don't know which country you live in but I'm guessing it wasn't created by "international law." That is not how the vast majority of nations on this earth were formed.
Report
Reply
-1
's avatar - Go to profile

Raphael B. Leib · 1 day ago
Evidently dmo65 is not familiar with the history of the Israeli state. Or with international laws regarding territorial sovereignty.
Report
Reply
+6
Pennywhistler's avatar - Go to profile

Pennywhistler · 1 day ago
And yet the State of Israel WAS established by international law. UN Resolution 181, if memory serves.
Report
Reply
-4
's avatar - Go to profile

Llyn Kidner-Williams · 19 hours ago
memory serves but failes also as UN resolution 181 has never been fulfilled by the Jews of Israel. In other words ......ratified. Israel failed to lived up to the agreement(s) of Resolution 181 making Israel an illegal State.
Report
Reply
+4
busterbobby's avatar - Go to profile

busterbobby · 19 hours ago
What? Should it be legal like the US, stealing a whole continent from the Indians? If Israel is illegal, then all states are illegal.
Report
Reply
0
Pennywhistler's avatar - Go to profile

Pennywhistler · 18 hours ago
I do not discuss important issues with idiots. Especially bull**** artists.
Report
Reply
+1
's avatar - Go to profile

Simone Kessler · 38 minutes ago
And the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael never even accepted the resolution, thereby forfeiting any right to a "Palestinian" Arab state.
Report
Reply
+2
's avatar - Go to profile

Raphael B. Leib · 1 day ago
Michael_Welbeck has the right of it. Any claim that calls into doubt the right of a person or group to inhabit the place where they live is suspect - particularly as such claims are frequently used by both Zionists and non-Zionists alike to advance their respective positions.

The more fundamental problem is with process and precepts. Too many atrocities have been perpetrated by one people against another under religious pretenses. Whether Jews have a theological claim to the Levant or not is irrelevant, given our unassailable historical claim to the land (i.e. we are there now and have had a sustained presence for thousands of years, as is reflected in the archaeological record). That said, the question of whether nation-statehood is a relevant model for countries in a post-colonial world, or whether the fact of one's inhabitance of a particular area confers the right on one's distant foreign cousins to claim affiliation with the area and to displace other residents in the exercise of said claim, is a legitimate topic for debate and is not ipso facto "anti-Semitism".

In sum, the Church of Scotland's comments are irresponsible not only because they alienate the Jewish community, but more fundamentally because they focus on irrelevant theological claims while ignoring geopolitical realities.
Report
Reply
+8
jonawolf's avatar - Go to profile

jonawolf · 1 day ago
Ironic that, just when Scotland is considering exercising its self-determination and exiting the United Kingdom, they deny to Jews, one of the oldest peoples with one of the oldest unbroken histories in its ancient land, the right to live and have sovereignty there. Political correctness run completely amok in theology-land.

I assume that the Church's reexamination of all of its longest-standing and most established beliefs has not led to jettisoning their faith in Heaven and Hell. Well, they can all go straight to Hell.
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 1 hour ago
+1
's avatar - Go to profile

Lloyd Oestreicher · 1 hour ago
I LOVE THAT WITHIN ALL THIS ANISEMITISM IS THAT CHRIST WAS A JEW. AND SO WERE HIS DISCIPLES.
Report
Reply
+6
metatron2's avatar - Go to profile

metatron2 · 1 day ago
The Church elders are imbibing too much of the local product. You DO NOT want to be on the side of the Muslim cockroaches. SOBER UP and act as if you are really human beings.
Report
Reply
2 replies · active 7 hours ago
0
's avatar - Go to profile

Craig J. Bolton · 8 hours ago
"Muslim coackroach" "real human beings". Reminds one of this political leader who use to talk about "vermin" who were not "real human beings." Doesn't it?
Report
Reply
+1
busterbobby's avatar - Go to profile

busterbobby · 7 hours ago
Yes, that sort of language is uncalled for, regardless of one's position on this particular case.
Report
Reply
+4
blackdamp1's avatar - Go to profile

blackdamp1 · 1 day ago
Have not this church's leaders have anything anything closer at home to worry them?
They carry on about who has a claim on Israel while (unlike the Republic of Ireland) they are still tied to their mother country's apron strings.
Report
Reply
+3
's avatar - Go to profile

Brian Kresge · 1 day ago
I'm burning my kosher haggis recipe!
Report
Reply
+1
's avatar - Go to profile

Aron Brondo · 1 day ago
SMH..... hello...... Jesus was Jewish... and even the disputed lands like Jew-deah, and Samaria, lol .. and even the european claims to monarchy and the emblems, Lion (of Judah), Shell (James the Greater) Harp (David), Royal Blue (Davidic tekhelet made from shells or cochles) come from Clotilda whose maternal line was Jewish and subsequently Christian, as all first Christians were..it was she who converted Clovis and the Merovingian line starts, and through her Judah heritage the divine right of kings (being related to David who was Chosen by God).
The Abrabanel are David's direct descendants and both the Sefardim and Clotilda's maternal line (Jewish blood passes from the mother) go all the way back to Jerusalem, Israel to at least 700 BC
Report
Reply
+5
HerbGrossman's avatar - Go to profile

HerbGrossman · 1 day ago
They set up a straw man and then knock it down. Which Jews believe that we are entitled to our land because of the Holocaust? We are entitled to it because it belongs to us historically and legally, the latter because of the League of Nations Mandate, which TransJordan's illegal seizure in 1948 did not supersede, even with regard to the West Bank.
Report
Reply
+4
's avatar - Go to profile

Elaine Pomm-Pomeransky · 23 hours ago
I live here, and I have had a solitary battle against antisemtism. Even the Scottish Parliament had a cross party group for Palestinians, but not for middle east peace.
Report
Reply
2 replies · active 8 hours ago
-3
's avatar - Go to profile

Llyn Kidner-Williams · 19 hours ago
Bull****. Of course you feel that if someone wants peace in Palestine it means they are antisemits. Tough elaine pommpomm. Palestine is full of real Semites.
Report
Reply
+3
busterbobby's avatar - Go to profile

busterbobby · 8 hours ago
Good Lord, you silly twit, you've posted the link to your Facebook page here. You are indeed an anti-semite, or, more plainly, a Jew-hater. Posts regarding Jewish spies, sneering posts regarding Jews as the Chosen People (something actual Jews never speak about), etc. Tons of posts regarding Islam and Arabs, all completely uncritical, of course, and I doubt you were born either Muslim or Arab. You're clearly obsessed with the subject, obsessed enough to go trolling on Jewish websites. And of course, you want peace for Palestine, not for Israel AND Palestine. It is indeed possible for a person to oppose Israeli policy while not being fundamentally anti-Jewish nor anti-Israel. You are clearly not one of those people, nor is the Church of Scotland.
Report
Reply
+5
busterbobby's avatar - Go to profile

busterbobby · 23 hours ago
I just searched the Church of Scotland's website under "Israel." Four pages of links came up. At least 90% of them concerned Palestine. It seems that, for this illustrious church, Israel as a separate entity scarcely exists. By the way, the Church of Scotland also bitterly opposes same-sex marriage. Apparently, its bigotry and ignorance are quite broad-based.
Report
Reply
3 replies · active 7 minutes ago
-4
's avatar - Go to profile

Llyn Kidner-Williams · 19 hours ago
and it should not exist.
Report
Reply
+1
busterbobby's avatar - Go to profile

busterbobby · 8 hours ago
Same-sex marriage should not exist? So you share all the bigotries of the C of S?
Report
Reply
+1
Zubelee's avatar - Go to profile

Zubelee · 7 minutes ago
Look you're not half Aegean either you're not half philistine because they would be Aegean
EditDelete Report
Report
Reply
+1
's avatar - Go to profile

@mattchand · 23 hours ago
It's worth noting that much of the point of view in the Church of Scotland's new position relates back to a book published originally in (I think) the 1980s, and now in its 5th edition. Another Church of Scotland minister, Rev. David Torrance, wrote a brief critical review of Chapman's book, and his main points, from the perspective of both a healthier Christian theology as well as a more lucid understanding of the history and politics involved in the re-establishment of Israel. The short read may be of use in the discussion with those who would attempt to justify the Church of Scotland's position. See http://www.hgtaylor.net/chapman-torrance.htm
Report
Reply
1 reply · active 21 hours ago
+1
busterbobby's avatar - Go to profile

busterbobby · 21 hours ago
Interesting
Report
Reply
+1
's avatar - Go to profile

@CindyBP · 20 hours ago
God said it was Israels, I am going with God on this.
Report
Reply
2 replies · active 15 hours ago
-2
's avatar - Go to profile

Llyn Kidner-Williams · 19 hours ago
Cindy, Were you present when God said this....did you personally hear him say it. If not it is just heresay, myth.
Report
Reply
-1
's avatar - Go to profile

Robert H Jr Siddell · 15 hours ago
I'm not a scholar of who is right/wrong here but Amos 3:7 essentially tells us to read Gods word to know the future. I apologize because I'm a Christian with some Jewish blood and my opinion/comments are from the prophets of Israel and I think many were not popular either. I think both the Gospels and Tanakh agree that Jesus ( a great Jew to Christians and a horrible Jew to most of His own today) will return to Jerusalem and save a Jewish remnant who will accept Him as Lord and ruler (ref Zechariah 12-14). There is no question in my mind who will possess The Holy Land from now on; Muslims could save themselves a lot of trouble by reading the Bible and not crossing swords with God (is this a good place to say "chupchik"). Jesus' return and rule will fulfill the Tanakh's prophecies of His glorious world rule that was suspended by His crucifixion which occurred in the house of a friend. His failure to rule the world from Jerusalem, as of yet, is quoted by my Jewish friends as evidence that Jesus could not have been the Messiah; yet I see this failure was also clearly prophesied in the Tanakh. Now I think Daniel 12 is about to be fulfilled. Who should Christians support now, Israel or "Palestine"? The way both Jews and Muslims treat us, I'd say a pox on both if Jesus hadn't told us to forgive and pray for our enemies. Revelation 17-21 says everyone will come to hate the Harlot and attack her (looks bad for my USA ,esp NYC, and Israel). To me, that turning of all the world against Israel is like I'm actually now hearing and seeing that storm coming; the actual destruction of the 2/3 (Zec 13: and Jesus' return is like seeing a storm on Doppler Radar just over the horizon. My answer: I'll support Israel because I know God favors her (both "good books" say so) and I don't want to harm even one of the remnant even indirectly. I will pray that God will help open the eyes of all mankind; all Jews and Gentiles.
Report
Reply
+1
JeffHupert's avatar - Go to profile

JeffHupert · 16 hours ago
And Cindy even if you - and maybe even me - believe it, itdoes not mean the millions of Muslims wo actually live there right now have to agree. And what are you planning on doing with them? The least obnoxious answer I heard from the hard liners is a continuance of a form of apartheid state. Of course, Hamas has no good ideas about what to do with the millions of Jews who live there right now. I invite comment. Not about what God did or didn't do, or about who did what to whom in 1948 (I think of my fellow Jews as the good guys, but so what?). What do yo "it's all or land" people plan on doing with -or to - the other guys who live there right now. I have a personal bias for pluralistic, largely secular states, but do more than maybe five people believe that could happen in Irael/Palestine? That leaves a negotiated two state solution. Or what are you going to do with the other guys? Enlighten me.
Report
Reply
+1
's avatar - Go to profile

@robtcohen · 2 hours ago
The courageous Reformist Martin Luther was no friend of Judaism. Just speculating/hypothesizing about two followers, the Protestant Presbyterian founders, John Knox and/or John Calvin have perhaps emulated Martin Luther's take, and so with that traditional Jew as devil heritage plus synthesizing with the contemporary Palestianian plight, the post World War II theologians adapt animus to trash Zionism. By the way, Noam Chomskyites are hoot-men too.
Report
Reply
 

 




 

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175926/church-of-scotland-denies-jewish-claim-to-land-of/#ixzz2SMQ4uMwO

[serbian army]

I am Orthodox Christian but I can not keep up with how many sects are in existence. Tiny Serbia has over 250 registered sects among which many are branches of Satanism. If you would to get upset what each of them is saying you would go crazy after several days.  Only Church that has real influence on world's affairs is Catholic Church and to some extent Orthodox Church.

[Nachus]

                                                                                                                                            



 And they will thankfully be cursed for this!