Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for the ‘anti – Semitism’ Category

Is Your Eschatology Political Or Biblical?

Posted by Job on March 12, 2011

Sorry for the disproportionate emphasis on the endtimes lately. Rest assured, I am not reverting back to my “Heal The Land With Spiritual Warfare” angry Pentecostal days when I was given to much speculation concerning anti-Christ new world order conspiracies. It is merely that I have finally gotten around to reading an excellent book recommended by the Irish Anglican, which is “Interpreting Revelation: A Reasonable Guide to Understanding the Last Book in the Bible” by the late Merrill Tenney, an evangelical theologian who at one point was under the employ of Wheaton College. Now this Tenney was not nearly objective; rather it was quite easy from reading the book to discern that his beliefs tended towards premillennial dispensationalism/pre-tribulation rapture. Fortunately (for me anyways) Tenney pays little attention to his rapture beliefs beyond “gently” mentioning it as a possibility now and then, and instead deals with other issues using my own preferred methodology, which is literal-historical-redemptive interpretation of Bible texts (a hermeneutic that relies mostly on literal interpretation but allows for symbolic and figurative interpretation where appropriate) supported by responsible prooftexting (interpreting scripture with scripture without using verses out of context in order to support some agenda or bias) and appeals to church history. This makes it possible for me to (mostly) agree with Tenney’s scholarship in “Interpreting Revelation” in spite of my disagreement with his belief in (and in this book advocacy of, however mildly) a pretribulation rapture.
Of particular interest are chapters 8 and 9 of his text, which are “The Chronological Approach” and “The Eschatological Method.” In those, Tenney makes the case – though oddly enough this case was not his intention to make – that premillennialism was the eschatological view adopted based on the Biblical (and extrabiblical) text, and that other systems, particularly preterism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism, were developed for political reasons. (Regrettably, Tenney fails to distinguish between his own modern premillennialism – which includes dispensationalism – and historic premillennialism, or chiliasm. His case would have been much stronger, and dare I say more honest, had he done so. That, and his shocking failure to deal with the objections to premillennialism – his own view – as thoroughly as he did with the systems with which he disagrees actually constitute a greater shortcoming than his occasional stumping for the pretribulation rapture.)
First, preterism. Tenney convincingly credits its development with Alcazar, a Roman Catholic Jesuit friar. This Alcazar was a counter-Reformer, which was a duty of The Society of Jesus in general. He developed preterism in order to refute Protestant attacks on the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church, as the Reformers polemically used Revelation to refer to this church and its pope as “Babylon” and “anti-Christ.” His method: claiming that Revelation was written in reference to the early church’s struggle with the Jews (chapters 1-12) and paganism (13-19) and had no contemporary or future application whatsoever. Thus, Alcazar followed after a long line that began at the very latest with Eusebius in marginalizing Revelation for political purposes. What is amazing is that Protestant theologians soon began to adopt for themselves a Roman Catholic system created for the very purpose of opposing – and attempting to destroy – the Protestant Reformation, and many have used it ever since despite knowing its original origin and purpose! Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.
Next, Tenney deals with the political origins of postmillennialism: Augustine’s need to defend the declining Roman Empire (and the ecclesiastical arm of the church-state) along with it. The idea at the time – first proposed by Eusebius in his “official theology” created to support the political aims of Constantine, to whom Eusebius served as an “advisor” – was essentially that the Roman Empire through its making Christianity the state religion, was the earthly fulfilment of the kingdom of God, and that the empire and its church would grow (whether by conversion or coercion) to fill the earth and thereby fulfil the prophecies concerning the global reign of Jesus Christ. Of course, this doctrine JUST HAPPENED to provide a religious justification for the need/desire of the Roman Empire to wage war, conquer territory and subdue/repress people. When the Roman Empire began to crumble, Augustine had to rework his doctrines somewhat in order to arrive at the position that even though the present political order – the Roman Empire – might collapse, the visible church destined to gain global dominion (and domination) would continue by attaching itself to whatever political, social and economic order that existed (whether the Roman Empire of Constantine’s time, the feudalism of the Dark and Middle Ages, or our current political hegemony) and adapting to fit it.
To pull this off, Augustine had to use an allegorical/spiritual method of interpreting Revelation (and other texts) that allowed him to strip the text of its intended meaning and assign the meaning that suited his purposes, which of course were the purposes of the empire and its state church. In that regards, we can consider Augustine to be a postmodern reader-response deconstructionist sort whom the Marxist scholar Jacques Derrida merely followed after 1500 years later! One of the things that Augustine had to do was deny a literal first resurrection, that of the martyrs spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6, by making the amazing claim that this passage referred to Christian regeneration! Now while Augustine was technically not Roman Catholic (but rather “proto-Catholic”) it is still amazing that so many Protestants followed his eschatological groundwork when it so blatantly involved willfully denying the meaning of scripture in order to contrive an interpretation that suited his political needs. Now, the Reformers were motivated to remain basically loyal to Augustine’s eschatology because of their commitment to his soteriology. The problem is that where Augustine’s soteriology is easily confirmed by a plain reading of the Bible, one has to reject that plain reading in order to adopt his eschatology. The Reformers erred in not being consistent in their hermeneutics, and with regard to the magisterial Reformers in general, were not free of their own political needs in maintaining their own church-states.
Amillennialism, at least according to Tenney, is little more than an improved or more sophisticated and “realistic” postmillennialism. Thus, it follows the same Eusebius-Augustine theological lineage, and ultimately comes to the same conclusions, even if – again according to Tenney – it makes better use of scripture in arriving at them. For instance, amillennialism also generally denies a literal first resurrection. Which is understandable: if the church and the political/economic/military/religious/cultural systems (the world) are one and the same, then who is martyring the Christians that will be resurrected? However, it should be pointed out that amillennialists do generally acknowledge that evil will increase before the return of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ does return to overthrow and judge a wicked worldly system, a wicked ungodly antiChrist system (as opposed to a personal antiChrist). At best, this system is an attempt to reconcile political eschatology with what the Bible actually says. As stated earlier, this was likely done because these doctrines came as part of a larger packaged doctrinal system (i.e. covenant theology).
Then, there is premillennialism. Tenney does acknowledge that premillennialism was not the consensus view of the early church, though he does regretfully understate this fact. However, Tenney does effectively make the case that premillennialism was a doctrine of many Christians from the earliest times in recorded church history, and naming such people as Papias and Justin Martyr (who wrote mere decades after the canon was completed, as early as 115 AD) as well as Irenaeus. Tenney uses the uncanny similarity between the millenarian teachings in Revelation and those in such apocryphal books as Baruch and Esdras IV as evidence of the existence of chiliast beliefs in the first century church. Of course, many throughout church history have used this fact against premillennialism, claiming that it is Jewish propaganda and misinterpretations of prophecy, but that principle is not used against apocryphal and extrabiblical references that appear in other Bible books (i.e. the book of Jasher and the book of the wars of the Lord in the Old Testament; the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses in Jude).
Of course, embrace of premillennialism was far from universal in the early church. However, some of that can be attributed to anti-Jewish bias among Gentile Christians (which scripture tells us was developing as far back as when Paul composed the epistle to the Romans), and more still to a lack of a normative canon, and in particular the fact that Revelation appears to have been among the last books to gain widespread circulation and acceptance. However, it is known that vigorous opposition to chiliasm – and in many cases to Revelation itself, including many who wanted to either explain away its meaning and application or keep it out of the canon altogether – did not arise until Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, and that this opposition was motivated by the need to depict the Roman Empire as the fulfilment of God’s kingdom. Tenney’s assertion of this point is by no means unique, but is repeated in any number of books on church history, and in particular those that deal with the debate over Revelation’s inclusion in the canon.
A final positive contribution by Tenney is his debunking the common claim that premillennialism received its modern revival thanks to the works of such spurious characters as Cyrus Scofield. The effects of this contribution is somewhat diminished by Tenney’s failure to acknowledge that at least some of the Christians who began investigating premillennialism had social and political motivations. This was true of certain radical Anabaptists in their violent upheavals in the 16th and 17th centuries, and also of Christians operating in the political, economic and social upheavals in the United States and England in the 19th century. Still, Tenney does identify a list of more reputable scholars who contributed to the revival of premillennialism (including historic premillennialism, which again Tenney regrettably does not distinguish) including Johann Albrecht Bengel, Hermann Olshausen, Heny Alford (definitely a chiliast), Johann Peter Lange (somewhat questionable because of his tendencies towards neo-orthodoxy), Andrew Fausset (another chiliast), Joseph Seiss, Franz Delitzsch and Charles Ellicott. Unfortunately, Tenney does the credibility of his effort in compiling that list great harm by including Plymouth Brethren hyperdispensationalist (a position that challenges the unity of the New Testament by setting Paul’s teachings over against those of the gospels and Acts) John Nelson Darby on his list of “reputable scholars”! (Why Darby and not Scofield, who in some respects is actually LESS problematic?)
So, Tenney’s book, despite its problems, helps one arrive at the conclusion is that premillennialism is the eschatological position that, despite is shortcomings, reflects the Biblical text according to a consistent hermeneutic and early church doctrines, and not the political need to assert that a church-state serves as the kingdom of heaven until the return of Jesus Christ. The former view integrates Revelation into a consistent schema of Old and New Testament thought – and not merely thought related to the apocalyptic/eschatological/prophetic – while the latter makes one wonder why Revelation is in the canon in the first place, and especially its application to contemporary Christians.

Posted in anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, beast, Bible, catholic, Christianity, church state, church worldliness, covenant theology, endtimes, eschatology, evangelism, false doctrine, false teaching, Israel, Jesus Christ, man of sin, mark of the beast, postmillennialism, prophecy, religion, religious right, replacement theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Romans 11:26 – When Will All Israel Be Saved? See Zechariah 12

Posted by Job on March 11, 2011

Romans 11:26-27 reads “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Now John Calvin, despite his being right on so many other matters, erred when he claimed that this passage refers to spiritual Israel, the church. This cannot be the case, because Sha’ul the Benjamite Jew (more commonly known as Saul, or Paul) had already made the distinction between Israel and the church, between natural Israel and spiritual Israel, earlier in Romans (such as Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:3-4), and furthermore declares himself to be a member of both natural and spiritual Israel. Also, “when I shall take away their sins” cannot in any sense refer to the church, because Paul is referring to a prophecy that is as yet unfulfilled with respect to national Israel. For we all know that spiritual Israel, the church, has already had its sins taken away.

So, Romans 11:26-27 refers not to the past/present church, but a future event when national Israel is saved and joins spiritual Israel; when natural Israel becomes a member of both groups just like Paul and the other apostles. John Calvin was unable to acknowledge the plain meaning of that text because of his theological bias; the covenant theology framework that refuses to acknowledge a distinction between Israel and the church, claims that Israel was the church of the Old Testament, and that (among other things) where infant circumcision was the covenantal inclusion ritual of the Old Testament church, infant baptism is the covenantal inclusion sacrament of the New Testament church.

So, allowing Romans 11:26-27 to stand as written, when will this event happen? When will Israel’s national salvation occur? The hint occurs in Revelation 1:7, which reads “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” That text points directly to Zechariah 12:10, which reads “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” Now the spirit of grace and supplications (see Romans 8:26-27) is the Holy Spirit. The One who sents the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete (see John 14:16-26), is Jesus Christ. So, Jesus Christ is the “me” whom “they” have pierced, and “they” in this specific context are the Jews, who bear the national responsibility for killing Jesus Christ through the actions of their religious and political leaders in the time of Jesus Christ, Caiaphas the high priest and the Sanhedrin.

So, when this prophecy is fulfilled, the same Holy Spirit that currently indwells the church, spiritual Israel, will also indwell the Jews, natural Israel. And if this prophecy is to be interpreted literally, this will not be the result of individual conversion by way of preaching the gospel as happens with the church, be its members (Messianic?) Jewish or Gentile, but instead an act of national salvation akin to God’s delivering Israel from Egypt and making the covenant with the Jewish nation at Sinai as recorded in Exodus. (It is obvious – to me anyway – that this precludes any notion of “free will salvation.” Just as Israel had no choice in the matter at Sinai, but instead God imposed the Sinai terms on His vassal nation as its Suzerain Lord) they will have no choice to choose or reject Jesus Christ when He comes to fulfill Romans 11:26-27 with respect to the Jewish nation.

And when will this event happen? As Zechariah 12 is obviously linked to Revelation, which deals with the fate of the church (and please recall my position that there will be no “pretribulation rapture”, or even if there is one, it will be a partial one that will leave the vast majority of the church to endure the great tribulation), Israel and the world, this event will happen at some point during the great tribulation. More specifically, as Zechariah 12:10 and Romans 1:7 obviously describe the second advent of Jesus Christ, the best Biblical evidence (again, according to my opinion) is that this blessed event will occur at the time described in Revelation 19:11-21, which is Jesus Christ returning from heaven with His saints and angels to defeat the armies of the beast (or anti-Christ) and – according to those of us with premillennialist leanings – set up His 1000 year kingdom.

It is impossible to claim that Zechariah 12:10, or more accurately the much longer prophecy block that includes much of Zechariah 12-14, has been fulfilled already. It cannot refer to the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem or the Babylonian destruction of the same, as those had already occurred when Zechariah – who lived in the time of King Darius – wrote his book. It also cannot refer to 70 A.D., because of Zechariah 12:7-8, which reads “The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify [themselves] against Judah. In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David [shall be] as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.” The fact that God did not defend Jerusalem in 70 A.D precludes any preterist interpretations of Zechariah 12:10, particularly since preterism holds that Jesus Christ came to punish the Jews in 70 A.D., not to fight and overcome their enemies for them.

Still more evidence? Zechariah 12:2-3 reads “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah [and] against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” This is a reference to how during the endtimes, the Gentile nations will attempt to destroy Israel and Jerusalem. It will be at that time that Jesus Christ makes His return. Where will this return be? The Mount of Olives according to Zechariah 14:1-4. “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall 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 toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.”

Before you stumble at “and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished, and half of the city shall go forth into captivity” and consider that this may refer to the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians or some other event, please recall Revelation 13:7, which speaks of the beast “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” Now the Jews at this point are not “the saints”, but it is rather logical to conclude from that verse that the evil forces will inflict no small damage against Jerusalem and its inhabitants before Jesus Christ comes to save them, just as many Christians will perish at the hands of the anti-Christ before the days of the great tribulation are cut short for the elect’s sake (see Mark 13:20 and Matthew 24:22). Further, please recall that Romans 11:28 refers to the Jewish nation as being God’s elect also, thus Jesus Christ will return to ensure that some of both natural and spiritual Israel will survive the great tribulation. From these passages, it appears that natural and spiritual Israel will be combined into one elect church at the second advent of Jesus Christ.

Finally, consider Zechariah 14:6-9. “And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the light shall not be clear, [nor] dark: But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, [that] at evening time it shall be light. And it shall be in that day, [that] living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be. And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.” Does this not correlate strongly to the description of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22? Revelation 21:23 reads “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.” Revelation 22:5 also says “And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.” Revelation 22:2 reads “And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.” Zechariah 14:11 reads “And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.” Revelation 21:4? “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

It is simply inexcusable to ignore all this evidence unless one relies on a symbolic interpretation of not only Revelation, but the prophetic Old Testament material of Zechariah and elsewhere, not to mention New Testament prophecy outside of Revelation such as the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24-25, Luke 21 and Mark 13). The reason for such interpretation is the commitment to a theological construct that demands it (with the covenant theologian John Calvin mentioned at the beginning of this piece being an example). The fact that these texts have regrettably abused by many premillennial dispensationalists provides no justification for denying their plain meaning and application. At the very least, in order to be consistent, one must adopt a symbolic or “spiritual” interpretation of such Messianic prophecy texts as Isaiah 7:14 (yes, almah does mean “virgin” in that verse and not “young woman”, otherwise almah would not have been translated as parthenos, which can only mean “virgin”, in the Septuagint by Jewish scholars who lived over a hundred years before Jesus Christ!) and Isaiah 9:6.

Though the date of Israel’s national salvation will be the second advent of Jesus Christ, the question is the date of your salvation. This is so even if you are Jewish, for A) we do not know the day or the hour of Jesus Christ’s second advent and B) tomorrow is promised to no man. The Bible is clear: whether one is Jewish or Gentile, salvation is of the Lord, and there is only one Name by which men will be saved, and that Name is Yeshua Ha’Mashiach, with the common English transliteration being Jesus Christ. If you have not already been saved through Jesus Christ, I urge and entreat you to make your time of salvation right now.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!

Posted in anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, Bible, Christianity, covenant theology, election, endtimes, eschatology, great tribulation, Holy Spirit, Israel, Jesus Christ, man of sin, mark of the beast, Messianic Judaism, prophecy, religion, replacement theology, Ruach Hakadosh, the anti-christ, the beast, the false prophet, Y'shua Hamashiach, Y'shua Hamashiach Moshiach, Yeshua Hamashiach | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Is The Rider On The White Horse Of Revelation 6:2 Christ Or Anti-Christ?

Posted by Job on March 9, 2011

Revelation 6:1-2 reads “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”

The predominant view in modern western fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is that the rider of the white horse is the anti-Christ. This was my view until very recently, when I read the John Bunyan allegory “Holy War“, which altered, or should I say enhanced, my view of Jesus Christ (more on that later), just as did reading “Pilgrim’s Progress Part 1” changed my view of Christian living and Part II changed my view of the pastorate and of the church.

Allow me to say that this article provides a good reason why the rider on the white horse cannot be the anti-Christ, which is that the four horsemen are released this eschatological figure is not released until the fifth trumpet. The trumpets do not occur until the seventh seal, and the white horse is released by the first seal. So, the white horse comes at or near the beginning of the events of Revelation (presuming a linear timeline with a literal interpretation) while the anti-Christ comes well into those events. Some interpretations deal with this by claiming that the reference in Revelation 6:2 is the anti-Christ’s laying the groundwork, placing everything in order, for his full unveiling to the earth that is described later.

Well, further arguments against the rider being the anti-Christ are given in this article. It deals with how those who propose that the rider is the anti-Christ deal with the fact that white is always used to represent Godly virtue by making the statement that the anti-Christ comes in this manner to deceive people into thinking that he is Jesus Christ. However, this interpretation requires starting with the idea that the rider on the white horse is the anti-Christ, and then making everything else fit, something often called thesis-driven analysis and also called eisegesis. If your starting point was neutral concerning the identity of this character, then his being on a white horse would immediately disqualify your  associating him with the anti-Christ. But if your starting point was his being the anti-Christ, that is when you have to contrive an explanation for the horse being white, one that seems to violate all rules and standards for hermeneutics used for other passages. The question is: “Why is this done?”

It goes back to one’s view of Jesus Christ. The rider of the white horse is given a bow and he went forth to conquer, and conquer he did! Modern, humanistic, enlightenment thinking does not permit viewing Jesus Christ as the Conqueror. That is, at least not until the last day when Jesus Christ comes to judge the nations for their wickedness. That is the one time that the modern church with its man-centered mindset allows Jesus Christ, who as God is the Creator, Owner and Sustainer of the Universe, to be viewed as a conquering ruler. (And for those who believe in the rapture, this happens when the church is already off the scene, and is spared having to deal with Jesus Christ in this role.) In the modern mindset, Jesus Christ can be viewed as the sacrificial lamb, advisor, “co-pilot”, best friend, psychiatrist/psychologist, enabler, helper, moneychanger (prosperity doctrine), mystic/shaman, errand boy, and even romantic lover, but NOT as a conquerer. This stark, authoritarian, militaristic view runs counter to the modernistic Jeffersonian view that exalts such ideas as civil rights, human rights, democracy etc. above all, and needs a Jesus Christ that will bow and be conformed to it. Thus, Jesus Christ as conquerer cannot exist in the mind of the modernist/postmodernist Christian except for a single day when He is forced to execute that role with respect to the wicked. With the exception of that day, Jesus Christ remains in a construct that the modern mind finds acceptable. And according to that construct, where conquest to set up authoritarian rule is undemocratic is evil, this HAS to be the anti-Christ!

It cannot be Jesus Christ according to this mindset, because this mindset makes Jesus Christ a democrat. This Jesus Christ does not conquer. No, this Jesus Christ is standing outside the human heart like a lovesick teenage loverboy knocking on the door waiting, longing, begging for His sweetheart to come in. And it is only when the person that Jesus Christ’s target makes the free will decision to open the door to his or her heart and invite Jesus Christ in that salvation occurs.

For this to happen any other way, uninvited, unasked, and without consent, is tyranny. For Jesus Christ is not a sovereign king who rules by way of His undisputed dominion over the creation that is the work of His own hands for Him to do as He pleases. No, that is tyranny. Such rule is illegitimate, based on the threat of force rather than the consent of the governed! A true, enlightened philosopher king governs not by power or divine right, but by mutual consent! So, the one who stands at the door and knocks and will not come in without the consent of the “pilot” (for Jesus Christ is merely the co-pilot, not the actual pilot who is running the show and is the true master of eternal destiny, which is man’s free will) is Jesus Christ, the genuine article. The conquerer who does not ask permission, who does not gladly (though under submission) come when asked and does not meekly leave when rejected? Now that has to be the anti-Christ! So says the modern Christian mindset.

Thankfully, John Bunyan did not live in modern Enlightenment times! Therefore, Bunyan presents a different Jesus Christ, one that is actually present on the pages of the Bible before all the modern humanist filters and constructs are placed on it. Bunyan’s rather rough allegory presents a kingdom ruled by Shaddai (God the Father), whose most prominent and prized possession is the city Mansoul, which was built by the King Himself. While the modern mindset reared on democracy would revile the idea that a city is the possession of any king, A) this was in fact the custom of monarchs in times past – the kingdom and all in it were their possessions, and in the east the subjects of the “lord-kings” were considered slaves to the lord-king, and remember the Bible is an oriental book, not a western book and B) the Bible was fully written in the mindset of this custom. Mansoul rebelled against King Shaddai due to the provocation and trickery of Diabolus (Satan) and made Satan its king instead, under the false pretense that they could exchange status as slaves under King Shaddai’s rule to free men under his rule. Of course, Diabolus immediately made the residents of Mansoul his slaves, but so thoroughly corrupted and tricked them that they mistook the slavery of Diabolus and sin for liberation. Their delusion was so strong that when King Shaddai sent His captains (difficult to tell in the allegory, my guess is that they are angels) to liberate Mansoul from Diabolus, they resisted with all their might. The story was explicit: when Mansoul was given a multitude of opportunities to make a free will choice for King Shaddai, they rejected King Shaddai each time due to the depths of their depravity.

So, King Shaddai sent His Son, Prince Emmanuel, to recapture Mansoul. In this allegory, Emmanuel did not conquer Mansoul by standing at the door knocking and being invited in. Quite the contrary, He came with an army of soldiers and overcame the recalcitrant Mansoul, who resisted Him with all the force that it could muster – as it was still dedicated and devoted to Diabolus and its own sinful passions – with mighty force. Make no mistake, in this allegory, “and he went forth conquering, and to conquer” Mansoul! After the conquering of Mansoul was done, Prince Emmanuel had the entire town confess that He took the town for Himself as His prize by force; that when the town had the chance – indeed several chances – to yield itself up to the government of the Prince and His Father by choice, they refused each time. So, Mansoul chose the rule of Diabolus, and Prince Emmanuel gained the rule of Mansoul only by overtaking Diabolus, binding him, driving him out, and “spoiling the goods of the strongman” by declaring and setting up His own rule and domain – and through it re-establishing the same of King Shaddai – by force. Mansoul had no say in the matter, because Mansoul, by decree, election and will of God the Father its Owner and Creator – had declared it to be so. Mansoul did not choose Prince Emmanuel, but Emmanuel chose Mansoul (John 15:16).

Now, Jesus Christ as He is commonly depicted in most modern gospel music is not the rider on the white horse. But Jesus Christ as depicted in Holy War and in the Bible may well be. If nothing else, it is something to consider. Another thing to consider: why would the anti-Christ have to go about conquering the world to begin with? According to the words of Jesus Christ, Satan is already the prince of this world (John 14:30)! 2 Corinthians 4:4 declares Satan to be the god of this world, Ephesians 2:2 declares him to be the prince of the powers of the air. So, the anti-Christ does not need to conquer the world. All he needs is to have Satan’s authority transferred to him. Revelation 13:2 says exactly that: “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Further, Revelation 17 says that the rulers of the earth GIVE their power to the beast, NOT that he conquers them and takes it from them by force.

This may seem like idle speculation, or an excessive emphasis on “last things” when other issues concerning orthodoxy and orthopraxy are more pressing: “minoring in the majors.” However, one’s view of last things often casts a shadow on one’s belief. Many theological liberals and “moderates” de-emphasize predictive prophecy because of an anti-supernatural bias. Others use apocalyptic texts to promote the political and social causes that are near and dear to them. And many Christians are attracted to the rapture doctrines because of their desire not to suffer persecution and rejection by the world as Christ suffered the same.

In a similar fashion, the idea that the anti-Christ is the conquerer on the white horse reveals the mindset of a great many Christian theologians, preachers, and laymen concerning the doctrine of original sin. So many Christians SAY that they believe in original sin, or even total depravity, but by adhering to such interpretations as this, it really does imply otherwise. If original sin is true, if total depravity is true, then why is it that Jesus Christ comes only by willing invitation, and the anti-Christ only by force? Is that not backwards? If the anti-Christ, the beast is “the man of sin”, then the fallen, wicked world, if it is not his already, will freely, gladly accept him as one of their own, a kindred spirit! Again, why would a sinful world oppose and resist a man of sin? Why would they not accept him and instead need to be conquered by him? Only if there is some inherent virtue, inherent goodness in him that would cause him to resist the evil rather than accept it.

The idea that the anti-Christ would have to conquer is based on the notion that man is basically good; that the nations are basically good. And is that not what so many seem to adhere to because of their political, cultural and social beliefs? That the nations – especially the pro-western capitalist democracies – are good, and only the exceptions – the anti-democratic, anti-western, authoritarian regimes – are bad.

Isn’t it curious how most of the theories about where the anti-Christ will come is from the “bad” nations? First it was from the “bad” communist regimes. Then it was from the “bad” secular humanist socialist United Nations or European Union. Now speculation centers on the “bad” Islamic regimes. The idea that the anti-Christ could come from – gasp! – America, the shining city on a hill, the nation founded on Christianity and is a beacon of freedom and goodness? Well, MAYBE, but only if he is not really one of us like Obama!

Again, it is based on the idea that there is some inherent virtue in man, and some inherent virtue in what man builds. It is based on a rejection of original sin, a rejection of total depravity. Even the very idea that Satan takes over the earth and installs the anti-Christ only when the church departs after the rapture is based on the notion that Satan is not the god of this world at present! Ironically, people who adhere to this belief are de facto amillennalists believing that rather than being the god of this world in this present age, Satan is currently bound by the church’s presence.

So many Christians who profess to be evangelical or fundamentalist and profess a belief in original sin based on the actions of Adam only apply that doctrine to soteriology. They only apply mankind’s fallen nature to the individual human soul! But when it comes time to apply it to a larger scale, they shrink back! Why? Because of their love of this present world and the things in it! To those people, James 4:4’s “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” applies to liking MTV and the New York Times editorial page and not the entire fallen worldly system! The parts of the world they like, they consider it good, moral, even Christian. It is only the part that they are alienated from, usually because of political or cultural considerations, that they consider to be “worldly.”

But go back to the text and view it in context. Yes, Revelation concerns the last days. But the letter to the Hebrews – and elsewhere in the New Testament – declares that the last days began after the work of Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God’s plan and the high point of the history of creation. So, the last days – the time period that Revelation concerns itself with – is not merely the last seven years, the “great tribulation.” Instead, it concerns itself with the entire endtimes, which is now, and has been since Pentecost. That is why the letters to the churches are the first part of the Revelation. They are not introductory material to set the stage for the eschatology. Instead, they are part and parcel of the eschatology!

In that context, note that the white horse and its rider come first. It is the first seal! So, after the heavenly visions in Revelation 4-5, the white horse and its rider are the first thing that we encounter when the events shift back earthward in Revelation 6. So, why not strongly associate the white horse and rider with Jesus Christ speaking to and walking amongst the churches in Revelation 2-3? Were the material in Revelation to be arranged topically (i.e. with the things happening in heaven all together and the things happening on earth all together), that is exactly how it would appear … Revelation 6:1-2 would immediately follow the challenge to the Laodicean church!

So then, why not consider the possibility that the rider on the white horse given the bow and the crown and goes about conquering (and as this article states he does not obtain or use these things illegitimately in a manner that is against God’s will … such ideas are missing from the text) is going about to foreign lands conquering souls of sinners for God the Father? Did not Jesus Christ say in the Olivet discourse (i.e. Matthew 24:14) that the end will not come until His gospel is preached in all the world for a witness to all nations? Well, in Revelation 6, though it is certainly the last days, the end is not yet come! So, me must consider that the rider on the white horse is none other than Prince Emmanuel enlarging the domain of King Shaddai through the conquest of souls in every tribe and nation that are hardened with the total depravity of original sin.

Granted, this article does state that the rider is the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ. I disagree, but for my purposes the distinction is not a great one, as Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit in His Name to complete His Work through the church which is Jesus Christ’s Body, and the Holy Spirit is the One who performs regeneration. Instead, the main point is to consider the strong possibility that man-centered, humanistic thinking is the reason why the rider on the white horse was ever called the anti-Christ to begin with, especially when one has to be very inconsistent in one’s interpretation of Revelation and the Bible in general to arrive at that viewpoint.

Of course, the main point is that Jesus Christ is returning to judge the world and all its people for their wickedness. The only way to escape this judgment that is certainly to come at a time in the future that has been predetermined by God the Father is to be saved through Jesus Christ. If you have not been, I urge and entreat you that you would be so; that you too would be a conquest of Jesus Christ as was I.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!

Posted in abomination, anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, apostasy, beast, Bible, christian right, Christian salvation, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, conservatism, conservative, endtimes, eschatology, globalism, government, great tribulation, harpagesometha, Holy Spirit, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jesus Christ, Left Behind, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, liberation theology, man of sin, mark of the beast, mid - tribulation rapture, Middle East peace process, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim media conspiracy, New York Times, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, political correctness, politics, post - tribulation rapture, postmillennialism, pretribulation, rapio, rapture, religious left, religious right, the anti-christ, the beast, the false prophet, warning given to churches in Revelation 2 and 3 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Do Jews Bear Responsibility For The Death Of Jesus Christ?

Posted by Job on March 4, 2011

The answer to this question is yes. This is a fact plainly given in the Bible. That the Jews killed Jesus Christ is explicitly described by the unanimous testimony of all four gospels. Moreover, this event was recounted in various New Testament epistles. Also, the death of the Moshiach (or Messiah, or Christ) at the hands of His own people was prophesied in several places in the Old Testament. So, to deny this truth is akin to denying the truth of the Bible itself. Thus, the primary reason and motivation for denying this fact is to deny the truth and authority of the holy scriptures.

Now even though this is a fact plainly recorded and described in the Bible, it is not without a degree of nuance. For instance, there is the fact that Jesus Christ was killed on a Roman cross by Roman soldiers acting under orders by Pontius Pilate. Well, the Bible does not absolve the Roman Empire of guilt either! Quite the contrary, not only does it record the Romans’ mocking, torturing and killing Jesus Christ despite knowing of His innocence and mighty works, but Jesus Christ Himself told Pilate that he only had power over Christ because such power (meaning civil authority) was given to Jesus Christ by God. The fact that human rulers and governments derive their power from God and are used to do God’s bidding (whether they know of it or not) is a consistent theme of the Bible, given from Exodus in the Old Testament to Romans in the New Testament at minimum.

Still, it is impossible to blame entirely or mostly the Romans, because the Bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ was handed over to the Romans to be executed by the Jewish leaders. The gospel record states that the Jewish leaders initially handed Jesus Christ over because of the crime of blasphemy – which the gospels tell us that they actually sincerely thought Christ to be guilty of, though they could not legitimately prove it – and that Pilate and Herod were disinterested in using the Roman justice system to settle an internal Jewish matter. Pilate instructed the Jewish leaders to deal with them according to their own system, and the Jewish leaders refused, cagily claiming that execution was against their law. While that was technically true according to the Jewish statutes of the time (for reasons too complex to be enumerated here), Pilate knew full well that the Jews did execute people by stoning for blasphemy and other crimes, with Stephen in Acts being an example. Instead, the real reason why the Jewish leaders deferred stoning Jesus Christ themselves was the fear of provoking a popular revolt. A massive Jerusalem revolt over the stoning of Jesus Christ would have likely meant the end of the Jewish leaders, either at the hands of the people or at the Roman Empire (who would have held the Jewish leaders responsible for inciting the revolt by killing an innocent man very popular with the people in the first place).

So, then the Jewish leaders used the charge that Jesus Christ was a political subversive among the Jews attempting to challenge, defy and subvert their authority over the Jewish people. While they did not accuse Jesus Christ of being a threat to Rome itself, the Jews did enjoy a status of self-government under the Roman Empire because of their being a distinct people with a unique religion, and Rome had the obligation to protect this autonomy from internal and external threats, in addition to their policy against rebellions and disturbances in general (pax Romana). Violating Jewish blasphemy laws was not a Roman official matter, but attempting to rival or overthrow a local government was. So against this charge, Pilate had little recourse but to take it seriously, especially when Jesus Christ did not deny being King of the Jews (and Pilate knew that Christ had a large band of devoted followers), other than simply release Jesus Christ in complete rejection of the charges, which he was not willing to do. So, Jesus Christ was officially accepted as a prisoner of the Roman Empire. Pilate then made one last attempt to save Jesus Christ by having Him released in accordance with the Passover tradition – even rigging it by making the only choice Jesus Christ and the murderer Barabbas – and then ordered the execution.

So yes, the actual murder of Jesus Christ was committed by Romans. However, consider under our own laws, the person that hires a “hit man” to kill someone. Both the “hit man” who actually performs the deed and the person who hired the “hit man” are equally guilty of murder under our laws. In this case, the Roman Empire was the hired assassin, and the Jewish leaders were the ones that hired the Empire to commit the deed on their behalf. In another example, the Old Testament provides a comparison where the Jewish leaders were to be held responsible: that of David in the case of Uriah the Hittite. Uriah the Hittite was not killed by David’s hand, but rather on the battlefield by enemy soldiers. David instructed his generals to put Uriah “on the front line”, have Uriah’s company engage the enemy in battle, and then withdraw, leaving Uriah isolated, outnumbered and surrounded. So, though Uriah the Hittite was killed by Philistines, the Bible explicitly tells us that God held David personally responsible for the murder. So, in the murder of Jesus Christ, the Jewish leaders acted as King David, and the Roman Empire acted as the Philistines. Thus, giving the Roman Empire all or even most of the responsibility for this deed requires rejecting the truth of the gospels, the epistles that speak of the gospels, and the Old Testament scriptures that predict the gospels. The idea that Jesus Christ was killed by the Romans because He was – or the Romans erroneously thought Him to be – a political subversive cannot be reconciled with what the Bible actually says, and one must deny the Bible’s contents in order to adhere to and advance that position.

This brings us to the most difficult issue of all: the Jewish leaders living in that time versus the Jewish nation at that time and since. How can all the Jewish people be held accountable for the actions of a few Jewish religious leaders? Answering that question adequately requires that one challenge the modern mindset and adopt a way of thinking that was prevailing at the time when the Bible was written. The Bible was not written in modern times by people with contemporary ways of viewing the world. Often, we accidentally interpret the Bible as if it was. Or more dangerously, we consider our times to be better, more moral, more civilized, more intellectual, and more advanced than was the times of the Bible, so we see interpreting the Bible according to modern constructs as an improvement that provides a better, deeper, more spiritual interpretation and application.

So, yes, it is true that according to Enlightenment thinking and Bible interpretations from the worldview of Enlightenment thinking, only the Jewish leaders directly involved in the plot to hand Jesus Christ over to the Roman Empire with a demand to execute Him based on a judgment of theirs that He had committed a capital crime (whether blasphemy or indirectly threatening pax Romana) were guilty. However, the rub is that the Bible’s worldview does not reflect that of the Enlightenment, and in some instances to understand the Bible’s contents, one must reject Enlightenment thought.

The reason is that whether by accident or design, a major product of the Enlightenment is the enhanced – almost singular – focus on the individual. Above all else, the Enlightenment exalts an individual’s having the ability to possess and exercise his intellectual and moral free agency. As a matter of fact, according to the Enlightenment, the very purpose of civilization – community, culture, government etc. – is to empower this individual free agency to the maximum extent possible. Anything that puts unnecessary limitations on the individual is repressive and oppressive tyranny, and every institution should be designed to promote the most individual power and influence. Democracy, for example, is the ideal because it provides the maximum amount of individual influence over government, which we are told is illegitimate unless it derives from the consent of the governed.

Needless to say, this is incompatible with a book which starts with “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth” and therefore establishes from the very beginning that not only the individual but all creation is unconditionally owned and governed by an absolute Sovereign. An example: the people who founded this country by organizing a seditious sinful rebellion against this nation’s rightful ruler (yes, that is true whether it is in your history book or not) justified it based in part on the idea that the fact that the ruler was taxing them autocratically with no say in how high the tax rates were, how the tax money would be spent, and without asking their opinion or consent on the passage of laws governing the property and behavior of those being taxed. While that idea seems to be “gospel truth” in the minds of many western – and especially American – Christians NOW, in the worldview of the Bible, where the absolute rule of monarchs was not only unquestioned but was considered a virtue, it was madness. In the Bible, kings did not ask for permission, nor did they govern according to conditions imposed on them by their subjects. Instead, they governed by conquering – or the threat thereof – and their charges either accepted their edicts or perished. The purpose of governance in the Bible’s time was not to empower the individual to seek his own destiny to the greatest extent possible, but rather to maximize the ability of the monarch to govern. The monarch in turn was to use his power to provide as much order, peace, stability, protection and prosperity as possible. Naturally, a bunch of individuals living according to their own whims, fancies and self-centered passions – whatever the consequences to their families, tribes, communities and kingdom – acted against the ability of a monarch to protect and provide for his people and keep the peace.

Of course, with individualism comes the concept of individual responsibility. Now of course, modern thinking rejects true individual responsibility, which holds that each person must bear the responsibility for his actions, whether positive or negative. Instead, current modern thinking holds that each person must receive the maximum amount of benefit for positive actions, should receive as little ill effects for negative actions as is possible (that “society” should step in and bear as much cost as possible) and that above all receiving negative consequences that are not the result of something that individual did consciously and directly is perhaps the greatest of evils (on a par with depriving a person of the liberty to exercise his free agency). Now though a great many conservatives (theological and otherwise) propose that true individual responsibility is Biblical, the truth is that with respect to things that truly matter – the big picture where the Bible is concerned – the Bible does not deal with individual personal responsibility at all. Instead, the Bible deals with groups of people that have an individual – or a smaller body comprised of members of the group – acting in representative fashion. According to the Bible, no one stands alone. Everyone is part of the group, represents the group, and is represented by the group. Where the modern mindset is individualistic, the Bible’s mindset is tribalistic and nationalistic. The modern mindset, therefore, exalts itself against the Biblical mindset, and to understand the Bible, the modern mindset must be rejected.

Consider two core doctrines: original sin and Jesus Christ’s atonement. A Bible-based Christian with a modern mindset will know why he is a sinner because of what Adam did, but will not be able to truly understand why this is so. As a result, this fact is a truth in his mind only because the Bible says so, and to him it is a mystery that he accepts by faith without asking very many probing questions. Or, such a person may see it in the context of something that is still relevant to the modern world … something received by inheritance (i.e. a child inheriting a parent’s assets upon that parent’s death) or perhaps genetics. In a similar fashion, a person might simplify the atonement with a “Jesus Christ took my individual sins and died in my individual place and that one act did it for every other individual sinner on an individual basis” mindset. That is because the modern mind has real issues with such concepts as “federal headship”, “covenant representative”, “corporate solidarity.” Because the Bible has no concept of respect for the individual as we would recognize it today, it is taken for granted that we are all sinners because God appointed Adam as the representative of the human race, and as a result we are automatically, legally declared sinners because our representative sinned. It is in the same manner how in Bible times a king would literally commit genocide against and totally wipe out another kingdom because an offense made against him by that country’s monarch. In the time that the Bible was written, it was absolutely proper to hold all the people in the kingdom responsible for the deeds and misdeeds of their representative the king.

And that brings us to the Jewish leaders in the time of Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: they were the legitimate representatives of the Jewish people in both a religious and civil capacity. So, just as Adam’s eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil plunged all mankind into sin, the high priest Caiaphas and his collaborators’ sending of Jesus Christ to His execution was an action borne by all the Jewish people with consequences for all Jewish people. Again, let us use King David as an example. One might protest that the nation of Israel was not punished for David’s murder of Bathsheba. That is true, but David’s murder of Uriah was David’s acting in a private capacity in a private matter. By contrast, the rejection of Jesus Christ as Messiah and King was done by the Jewish religious leaders as a public matter – both civil and religious – on behalf of the whole nation. So instead, this can be considered akin to David’s sinning in his public capacity of ruler and commander of the military by ordering a census. The result of this act was the death of 70,000 people. These people did not sin and had no role in that act whatsoever, but rather died because of the actions of their representative David. For another example, many Egyptians, including the firstborn in every house, died because of the official actions of the representative of that nation, the pharoah. While the death that came upon Egypt was at least in partial response to the murder of the Hebrew male babies, virtually none of the Egyptians who died were directly connected to or personally responsible for that official decree of an Egyptian ruler some 80 years prior, or its execution thereof.

We should also remember that Jesus Christ spoke of the collective guilt of the Jewish people and nation when He pronounced woe upon Jerusalem and predicted the destruction of the temple and the end of the Jewish age in 70 A.D. We should also remember that the apostle Peter explicitly assigned responsibility to the Jews – and not merely the Jewish leaders, but Jews who may not have even been in Jerusalem at all when Jesus Christ was crucified nearly two months earlier – in his sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:14-36. Those Jews – again those who may not have even been present and possibly may have had no knowledge of the act – did not deny their responsibility for killing Jesus Christ, but instead fell under conviction and instead asked how they could repent in Acts 2:37. So, Jews at the time of Pentecost were fully aware of their shared responsibility due to the actions of their leaders. Such a thing was not questioned, because it was a truth, a mindset that was a core part of Jewish culture and belief of the day. The Jews at the time of Pentecost were not influenced by Enlightenment thinking! And neither should we be.

Now there is the perfectly legitimate question as to whether this guilt for the death of Christ shared by the Jews ended at some point, such as when Jesus Christ prayed for their forgiveness when He said “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do”, or in 70 A.D. when “this generation” ended, and then there is also the issue that according to certain Old Testament texts, sins only extended to the third, fourth or tenth generation (unless specifically stated otherwise). In that light, it is a legitimate question whether Jews living today are responsible through their national representatives at the time of Jesus Christ. The best answer that I can propose would be in the affirmative, for the passages that appear to time-limit to “third and fourth generation” only refer to punishment for the guilt, and not the legal status or judgment of guilt itself. This legal status or judgment of removal of guilt for the Jewish people for the murder of Jesus Christ appears nowhere in the Bible. As a result, only Jews who have all of their sins forgiven by having Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can be considered innocent at this present time.

So then, what does this mean? In many practical respects, absolutely nothing. For instance, the guilt of the Jewish people over the death of Jesus Christ is no more or no different from the guilt of all men over the sin of Adam. So, reviling, slurring or persecuting Jews as “Christ-killers” as if Jews are unique among mankind bearing imputed sin is absurdly anti-Jewish (or anti-Semitic as it is called in modern times) because sin imputed to mankind is universal. And the folly is even greater when one considers that it was Adam’s sin that necessitated Jesus Christ’s death in the first place. So what is the theological justification for singling out Jews for Christ’s death when you yourself bear equal responsibility for the very event that required Jesus Christ to be rejected and killed by His people?

Further still, Christian persecutors of Jews throughout the centuries have done so in spite of the commandments in the New Testament text itself. First of all, the New Testament does not command or in any way endorse the resentment or mistreatment, whether on a systematic or an individual basis, any Jew because of the Jewish guilt over the murder of Jesus Christ (or for any other reason for that matter). So, because the New Testament does not tell Christians to mistreat Jews, then the moral and ethical instructions and restriction of the New Testament on Christian behavior applies to our behavior with and among Jews. So, with Jews just as everyone else, we are to commit no obvious sins or crimes against them (i.e. murder, theft, slander), we are to love our neighbors, love our enemies, turn the other cheek, do unto others as we would have them to do unto us, refrain from spreading malicious gossip and rumors (blood libels, conspiracies about Jews controlling the government/media/banks and similar) and also obey the civil laws designed to protect all. Obviously, Christian mistreatment of Jews over the centuries required the sinful reinterpretation or nullification of these texts to justify it. The Bible makes it clear that those who do not keep the commandments of Jesus Christ whether with respect to Jews or in general are not Christians at all; they are not sheep but goats.

More specific theological reasons are spelled out in the outstanding and pivotal work of the Jew Sha’ul, the Book of Romans, the same Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin that is called Paul. Ironically, Paul is considered by those who despise scripture as the greatest of anti-Semites and the originator of the replacement theology that was allegedly used to justify persecuting Jews. Of course, such statements are lies against Paul, against the Bible, and against the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible. The truth is that Paul dedicates a large portion of the book of Romans not to denounce Jews as Christ-killers and demand that they receive ill thoughts and treatment as a result, but instead demanding that Gentile Christians accept and respect the Jewish Christians’ lineage and their adherence to their religious, cultural and national traditions, including circumcision and observing the Jewish feasts and the Jewish sabbaths. Unfortunately, the Gentile Christians quickly cast aside Romans and began to drive Jewish Christians out of churches over their refusal to abandon their heritage for Hellenism as early as the 2nd century, less than 100 years after Romans was penned.

In the course of defending Jewish Christians, Paul made the shocking statement that both exists in tension with legitimate replacement theology (though not paradoxical or in contradiction with or nullification of it!): that Jews are still God’s people, and moreover the original God’s people. Believing Gentile Christians are “grafted in” to the original branch of Jews who believe in their Moshiach. (It is very difficult not to come to the conclusion that believing Jews are therefore “first among equals” based on Please recall that the Bible is not an Enlightenment document, and therefore lacks our notions of total egalitarianism.) Now, it is tempting to state that Romans 11 only applies to believing Jews’ still retaining something of their chosen or special status. Romans 11:28-29 specifically rejects this by saying “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the Father’s sakes for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” That verse explicitly means that the original status of Israel set forth when they were first called out of Egypt and made into God’s unique people is unchanged, either by their breaking of the Sinai covenant (that is now of none effect, the ark which signifies that covenant was lost in 586 B.C.) or by their rejection of their Moshiach, an event that was necessary for the new covenant.

Further, Romans 11:28-29 precedes this amazing thought: “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” So, if the Jews are still God’s chosen people according to God’s election, and if all Israel shall be saved, what kind of a madman who professes to believe and love the Bible and take it seriously would persecute or hate any Jew? It makes no sense. It is the sort of sin that makes no sense, is utterly counterproductive, entirely without rational basis, and can only be described as being the work of demons. And it goes without saying that the people claiming to be Christians who persecuted and murdered Jews totally ignore Romans 11, and in the course of doing so did nothing but bring God’s curse upon themselves. It is particularly amazing that no small amount of Christians that adhere to covenant theology completely suppressed the truth of God within themselves with regards to Romans 11:28-29’s clear statement regarding God’s not repenting Himself of electing Israel, including those who do not believe.

Another vital theological reason: Christians are not God. A core fact of the New Testament is that the Old Testament Israel system of priests, sacrifices and civil judgments for religious laws is gone forever. Now under that old system, it was necessary and proper to give various punishments, including death, for sins. But now, Jesus Christ is our High Priest, and as we are in Jesus Christ, we are a priesthood of believers. And further, despite what was taught and practiced for centuries, the New Testament does not command, provide for or desire the establishment of Christian civil governments – as those contradict Christian doctrine inherently – but rather only governs churches and the lives of individual Christians. So, the only punishment for sins in the church age is church discipline of believers. As unbelieving Jews are not in Christian churches, they are not subject to any Christian punishment or sanction of any kind for any sin against Jesus Christ or anybody else. So, in the absence of a human official priesthood or theocratic state (which again, the New Testament forbids in both cases), Christians have no authority to judge or make any punishment for any sin apart from discipline in an ecclesiastic context (i.e. excommunication), and even those are sins that a believer individually personally committed (churches cannot punish anyone for being “in Adam”). So, any Jewish guilt related to the death of Jesus Christ is for God to judge and God to punish. Any man who takes this duty upon himself is presumptuously and sinfully laying claim to Divine duties and privileges, and is therefore bringing God’s wrath upon himself. Also, as stated earlier, one cannot punish a Jew for the actions of Caiaphas without also punishing a Gentile for the actions of Adam.

In summary, the Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ is attested in the Bible. However, the same Bible makes it clear that this guilt on the part of the Jews is God’s business alone. God alone judges sin, and God alone punishes sin. So, the person that attempts to act in God’s place does nothing but sin himself. Therefore, beyond mere bearing witness to the truth of the Bible, the issue of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus Christ is not an issue, and further dwelling on or making too much of the issue only serves as a temptation to invite the influence of what apparently are extremely powerful evil spirits that provoke thoughts and actions related to anti-Judaism (commonly referred to in these times as anti-Semitism).

This means that the real issue is not whether Jews living today bear responsibility for the actions of Caiaphas and other Jewish leaders in death of Jesus Christ. Instead, it is the sin guilt that all bear, Jew and Gentile, for the actions of Adam. Be not deceived … whether Jew or Gentile, if you are not reconciled with God through His Unique Son Jesus Christ, because chiefly of the actions of Adam, and also because of your own sin – for all do sin – you are considered to be a sinner by God. The Bible says that the soul that sins will surely die, and the Bible declares this death to be eternity in a lake of fire. The good news – the gospel – is that because of the actions of Jesus Christ, you can be declared free of all sin, whether your own individual actions, the actions of Caiaphas if you are a Jew, and the actions of Adam for all. So whether Jew or Gentile, please urgently:

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in anti - Semitism, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Messianic Jewish Teenager Ami Ortiz Victim Of Terror Attack By Israeli Jews For Believing In Jesus Christ!

Posted by Job on June 22, 2008

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25306012/

Commentary from a Messianic Jewish magazine

Posted in anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, Christian Persecution, Christianity, evangelism, Israel, Judaism, Messianic Judaism | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Bloodline Of The John McCain Supporting Rothschilds

Posted by Job on June 8, 2008

This may open me up to charges of anti – Semitism. It is a risk that I am willing to take.

Financial Wizards & Wealthy Cults The Rothschild Bloodline

Posted in anti - Semitism, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Artwork Depicting Jesus Christ Last Supper As Homosexual Orgy Shown At Austrian Museum

Posted by Job on April 8, 2008

Click on link below.

Erotic Jesus sparks art debate in Austria | U.S. | Reuters

Posted in abomination, anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, apostasy, beast, Bible, bigotry, blasphemy, blasphemy Holy Ghost, blasphemy Holy Spirit, Christian hypocrisy, christian left, christian liberalism, Christian Persecution, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, civil rights, endtimes, eschatology, hate speech, homophobia, homosexuality, idolatry, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, mark of the beast, pornea, pornography, sexual exploitation, social breakdown, societal decline, sodomy, subversion, the anti-christ, the beast, the false prophet, warning given to churches in Revelation 2 and 3 | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

John McCain Accepts The Endorsement Of Heretic John Hagee!

Posted by Job on February 28, 2008

First Huckabee, then McCain, who was on record in 1999 as stating that he did not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. McCain also has a long record of opposing many of the things on Hagee’s political and religious agendas. This just proves that the guy who denies the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, claims that Jesus Christ was killed by Rome for His political beliefs,prophesied that the United States would attack Iran in 2007 (and is still demanding that we attack Iran!) and preaches dual covenant theology is simply in it for the power and money.

Posted in abomination, anti - Semitism, apostasy, blasphemy, catholic, christian broadcasting, christian conservative, christian right, christian television, christian worldliness, Christian Zionism, Christianity, Christians United For Israel, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, conservatism, corrupt televangelism, Council on Foreign Relations, dual covenant theology, evangelical christian, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, fascism, GOP, government, heresy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John Hagee, John McCain, politics, religious right, televangelism | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Replacement Theology

Posted by Job on February 17, 2008

From Dr. Randy Weiss of Crosstalk.com, who can be reached at randy@crosstalk.org

Conditions deteriorated between Jews and Christians
until the Church led the world into the anti-Semitic
excesses of the era known as the Dark Ages. It is worth
remembering that the Dark Ages of the Gentile world
revealed a renaissance of Jewish literature and
philosophy. While the Gentile world floundered in
illiteracy, the Jewish world gave rise to the birth of
talmudic writings and rabbinic literature that might
best be described as an era of Jewish Enlightenment.
Yet the Christian world seethed with hatred against
everything Jewish. And it was during these Dark Ages
that conditions further deteriorated for Jews. The
history of the Church was marred by abominable medieval
Christian atrocities against Jews.

The Church, as the “new Israel,” attacked the
original children of Israel with an unholy vengeance.
Christian theologians boldly revealed their propensity
to interpret the promises of God as having been shifted
from Israel to the Church. In their view, Christianity
got the blessings and the Jews retained the curses of
God. As the theology of the Church solidified, their
perspective on Jews and Judaism decomposed. The
Church’s premier thinkers inadvertently became the
Jew’s worst nightmare.

Aurelius Augustinus, the bishop of Hippo (354 – 430),
better known as Saint Augustine, was a leader of the
Church during the fourth and fifth centuries CE. Under
his guidance, Christianity slid deeply into the error
of anti-Semitism. It can be deduced from the teachings
of Augustine that the Church came to a view that the
Jews were a lost race without hope of redemption. The
Church determined that Israel had forfeited her
covenants by rejecting Christ. Augustinian theology
provided for a dramatic shift in Catholic politics,
worldviews, and eschatology. The leaders of the Church
of Rome began to teach that all the future messianic
promises of natural Israel were transferred to the new
spiritual Israel–the Church.

The Roman Catholic Church appropriated the system of
interpretation first developed by Origen in the early
2nd century. This permitted Church leaders to develop
their own symbolic interpretations of the Bible. As the
theology of Augustine became popularized, the Church
soon began teaching that God had chosen the Church to
receive all of the promises previously granted to
Israel as a divine right of Christianity. To the
detriment of the Jewish people, this dangerous system
of thought continued to expand throughout the region
touched by Church authority. That authority did expand
to include as much political control as the Church
could gain in the world. During portions of the Middle
Ages, the Church was in a position of power that
covered most of the continent of Europe. Unfortunately,
the beliefs and practices of the Church that ruled
Europe did not reflect the original orthodox views of
the earlier leaders of the Church in Israel. It is
clear from the accounts of history that when the Church
was dominant in both religion and politics, it led to
some of the most oppressive periods of Christianity. It
must also be admitted that the negative effects of
power were felt by both Christians and those outside of
the Church.

Augustine’s teaching did not lose impact after his
death. His views prevailed and furthered the
depreciation of the Jewish people. Any system of
Christian thought that presents the Church as having
spiritually taken the place of Israel, such as
Replacement Theology, or Dominion Theology, is heavily
dependent on the system of early Catholic biblical
interpretation developed by Origen and Augustine.

This perverted heresy worked its way deep into the
beliefs of the Roman Church. The effects have been felt
in many Christian circles since the early fifth century
when it became embedded in the spiritual DNA of many
Christians. Soon the Church espoused the view that it
had become heir to the covenant promises of God
previously granted to Israel. This also included the
Church’s right to the Holyland. Some within the
Catholic Church still hold the hope of a spiritual
claim to Israel. I believe it is one of the reasons
they refused to recognize the nation of Israel until
recently. Instead of leaving Jerusalem under the
control of Jews, Some Catholics would have preferred
that the Vatican be granted control over the Holyland
and the holy sites.

Modern history is closely connected to ancient history.
In a sense, the Jews were in the way of the Church
then. The Jews remain in the way now. The difference is
that at that earlier time, the Church used its newfound
political power to move the Jews out of their way. They
did so by enacting and enforcing terrible anti-Jewish
legislation. This wicked practice was one of the sad
legacies of the era of Christian political dominion. As
is well known by Jewish people, the Church was the
primary source of problems throughout the Middle Ages.
It must be remembered that the Church used terror and
violence to control the Jews. And they used brute force
to convert Jews to Christianity. It was common for
Christians to exert political oppression and every form
of cruelty to dominate Jews or kill them when it suited
the oppressors.

Beginning in the Dark Ages and continuing throughout
the Middle Ages, anti-Semitism came to the world from
the Church. Jewish people were permitted to live in
Christian controlled areas. However, this was not due
to any beneficent attitudes. Rather, it was to prove
the veracity of the Old Testament prophecies. Christian
leaders, such as Augustine, presumed that Scriptures
predicted that the Jews would be rejected and
dispersed. Therefore, when Jews were found to be living
below the standards of Christians, even if under
horrifying circumstances, it revealed divine punishment
and prophetic fulfillment. Jewish suffering proved
God’s will according to the perverse view of some
Christians in that age. Copyright 2005 by Randy Weiss, Ph.D.

Posted in anti - Semitism, Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Messianic Judaism | 9 Comments »

Pat Robertson: Dual Covenant Theology Heretic

Posted by Job on February 14, 2008

Independent Conservative » Blog Archive » Why Did Pat Robertson Lie to Michael Eisner About Salvation?On June 20, 2006 the cable TV network CNBC featured media mogul
Michael Eisner interviewing Pat Robertson. Although this happened some
time ago, there was something that took place during this particular
interview, that I have not found much outcry against and I felt it
should be noted here. Because it is a totally misleading use of
scripture and Pat Robertson once again showed he’s following AND
TEACHING a false gospel, to say what he said to Michael Eisner.

What concerns me occurred at the tail end of the interview. You can watch video of the interview via this link and once the interview video starts (after an advertisement), you can advance to 4:22 to see where things start regarding what I’m speaking of here.

Below is a quote from the official transcript.


MICHAEL EISNER:
This may be a silly question. I’ve almost been married as long as you have. About 40 years. How long have you been married?

PAT ROBERTSON:
About 52.

MICHAEL EISNER:

All right. So I’m not– I’m not in your league. I’m not in your league.

PAT ROBERTSON:

All right.

MICHAEL EISNER:
So my wife is Christian.

PAT ROBERTSON:
Right.

MICHAEL EISNER:
So I appreciate the fact that she’s Christian. She can go to heaven. I’m Jewish.

PAT ROBERTSON:
Yeah.

MICHAEL EISNER:

So from what I understand, we only can be together in– on this Earth. ‘Cause I can’t go to heaven, according to the 700 Club.

PAT ROBERTSON:

No, not according to the 700 Club. I don’t know who it’s according to.

MICHAEL EISNER:
All right. So– well, I thought Jews couldn’t go to heaven.

PAT ROBERTSON:
All right. Here’s the deal. And with this– the Apostle Paul said that
all Israel will be saved. There’s going to come a time when all Jews
are gonna come to heaven. They’re all gonna meet the– the Lord. And–
and it’s– it’s in the Old Testament. Zachariah says they’ll look upon
him who they have pierced, and they’re going to mourn and so forth. But
there’s gonna come a time of extraordinary persecution. There already
has come. But it’s gonna be some serious stuff. And– it’s told by the
Old Testament prophets the answer that we believe as evangelicals is
that God has a special role for the Jewish people. And you look at– you
look at the 22nd Psalm. He talks about his bones pulled out of joint,
you know? And he talks about people surrounding. And he looks down, and
it describes the crucifixion. It’s all in there. It’s in the Old
Testament– describing what happened. And– I’m just one of the goy that
came along late. (LAUGHTER) I– I’m– I’m converting to the– to the faith
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

MICHAEL EISNER:
So you’re converting to Judaism.

PAT ROBERTSON:
Well, I’m not converting to Judaism. (OVERTALK)

MICHAEL EISNER:

See, I thought I’d– this would be– this would be a big announcement here.

PAT ROBERTSON:
(LAUGHTER) I’m–

MICHAEL EISNER:
I could get a big rating.

PAT ROBERTSON:
I’m converting– (OVERTALK)

MICHAEL EISNER:
Pat Robertson converts to Judaism. (OVERTALK)

PAT ROBERTSON:
–faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And– but the time is coming very
soon when there’s going to be a revelation of the Lord to everybody.
And all Israel, all Israel is gonna get saved.

MICHAEL EISNER:
You’ve always been known to be very pro-Israel.

PAT ROBERTSON:
Totally pro-Israel. I mean, I– I’ve got the Star of David printed on my underwear. I mean, it’s that kind of thing.

MICHAEL EISNER:
Thought you had Mickey Mouse on your underwear.

PAT ROBERTSON:

(LAUGHTER) (UNINTEL) said you’re more Israeli than (UNINTEL). But in–
in any event– I firmly believe that according to the Bible, the– the
fullness of the Gentiles will come in. And then all Israel will be
saved. That’s what the Apostle Paul wrote.

MICHAEL EISNER:

Wow. (LAUGHTER) Thank you very much– (OVERTALK)

MICHAEL EISNER:
Got a lot to think about now.

PAT ROBERTSON:
(LAUGHTER) I want you to be with your wife.

MICHAEL EISNER:
Yeah. I’m gonna be with her, one way or the other.

PAT ROBERTSON:
Okay. (LAUGHTER)

MICHAEL EISNER:

Thank you.

What Pat Robertson basically said was (paraphrasing), All you Jews are going to Heaven, because Paul said ALL ISRAEL will be saved.

In the context Pat Robertson spoke, he spoke a lie. We could say Hebrew scripture notes all Israel one day went into the promised land, HOWEVER we should not forget that many did not get beyond the wilderness.

Numbers 14:22-32 (New American Standard Bible)

22 “Surely all the men who have seen My glory and My
signs which I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have put Me
to the test these ten times and have not listened to My voice,

23 shall by no means see the land which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who spurned Me see it.

24 “But My servant Caleb, because he has had a different spirit and
has followed Me fully, I will bring into the land which he entered, and
his descendants shall take possession of it.

25 “Now the Amalekites and the Canaanites live in the valleys; turn
tomorrow and set out to the wilderness by the way of the Red Sea.”

26 The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying,

27 “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation who are
grumbling against Me? I have heard the complaints of the sons of
Israel, which they are making against Me.

28 “Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the LORD, ‘just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you;

29 your corpses will fall in this wilderness, even all your
numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old
and upward, who have grumbled against Me.

30 ‘Surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to
settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

31 ‘Your children, however, whom you said would become a prey–I
will bring them in, and they will know the land which you have rejected.

32 ‘But as for you, your corpses will fall in this wilderness.

Take note of the statement “nor shall any of those who spurned Me see it”.
The Messiah of Hebrew scripture has come and His name is Jesus, Yeshua.
Yeshua, Jesus is the Christ. Since his coming, He warned Israel for
their unbelief in Him.

Luke 19:41-44 (New American Standard Bible)

41 When He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it,

42 saying, “If you had known in this day, even you, the things
which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes.

43 “For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up
a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,

44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within
you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you
did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

And it did happen.

Jesus provided the means for salvation through belief on Him. Jesus even explained this himself in John 3.
Through His sacrificial death, burial and resurrection, He provides
salvation to all who believe on Him, turning from darkness, both Jew
and Gentile alike.

One who rejects Jesus does not have the Father, they do not have God. They are not saved.

1 John 2:22-23 (New American Standard Bible)

22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is
the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and
the Son.

23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Therefore, it is impossible to tell anyone, even a Jew (a person of Hebrew blood) that they can be saved via any means except they believe on Jesus Christ. If they deny Him, they are not saved, period.

So what of all Israel being saved as Paul said? It is just like it
was for the Jews of the past. Those who deny the truth God has given to
man through His Son will perish, but a final remnant of Israel will
believe on Him and be saved. This does not mean Michael Eisner will be
part of that group. So to tell Michael Eisner “all Israel”, as if it
applies to him and all Jews is an untruth. Romans 11
is best read in full, given it details things fully. Through Hebrew
disobedience a means of salvation was made for Gentiles that believe on
Christ, but no Jew who rejects Christ will be saved. All Jews reading
this post should read the book of Hebrews from its first chapter to its last (chapter 13). When the fullness of Gentiles has come in (all Gentiles who are the Lord’s believe on Him),
that final remaining remnant of Hebrew blood will be at a point in
biblical prophesy, where they will all accept Jesus as Lord and He will
save them and all still in flesh at that time who believe on Him. All
who die today believing on Christ are saved too, but not anyone who
fails to. This does not mean Michael Eisner is saved by virtue of his
heritage, no more than anyone else that fails to believe on Jesus.

I feel it is a heinous crime against the Lord God, that so-called Christians are lying to people of Hebrew descent.

Related posts:

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in abomination, anti - Semitism, apostasy, blasphemy, christian broadcasting, christian right, Christianity, church state, corrupt televangelism, cult, dual covenant theology, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, GOP, government, heresy, Jesus Christ, Judaism, mammon, Pat Robertson, political correctness, politics, prosperity doctrine, religion, religious right, replacement theology, Republican, TBN, televangelism, trinity broadcasting network, Word of Faith | Tagged: , | 8 Comments »

The Richard Cohen Farrakhan Thing On Barack HUSSEIN Obama Is Having Its Intended Effect

Posted by Job on January 23, 2008

Please reference Big Trouble For Barack HUSSEIN Obama Based On His Church which was based on this Richard Cohen Washington Post column. Jewish voters are becoming wary of the fellow. See article below, especially the discussion board at bottom (including an angle on some Christian killer fellow named Raila Odinga of Kenya that is allegedly Obama’s cousin; have to check it out!). So, the anti – Hussein Obama coalition includes feminists, Hispanics, and Jews. This could case a real fragmentation of the left. In any event, this is still another example of how not to be conformed by the ways of the world. So many white evangelical Christians are going for Mike Huckabee and Mormon Mitt Romney, so many black Christians are going for Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hillary Clinton. All the more reason why those of us of all races, nationalities, tribes, tongues, socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. that are on the Lord’s side need to stand up.

Who are you, Barack Obama? | Jerusalem Post

Posted in anti - Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Christian Persecution, Christianity, GOP, Hillary Clinton, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormon, mormonism, Muslim | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Big Trouble For Barack HUSSEIN Obama Based On His Church?

Posted by Job on January 16, 2008

Now a few months back when Trinity Church of Christ was being derided for being a black nationalist liberation theology outfit that does not preach the true Jesus Christ, the left out of their hatred for Jesus Christ rushed to condemn Tucker Carlson and the other attackers. As a matter of fact, I participated in a lively “discussion” on that issue the day that I started this weblog. But now that Hillary Clinton fans see their ice queen’s march to the presidency threatened by this Negro usurper, the white left begins to pull from the same bag of racist parlor tricks as does conservatives.

Witness this article from Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. Now Cohen is actually an atheist, but he pretends to be Jewish when it is time to launch political attacks at his enemies by associating them with anti – Semitism. Cohen completely ignores the huge Jew and Israel hating contingent among Hillary Clinton supporters to demand that Obama disavow his church because its magazine gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. Now Trinity United Church of Christ has been doing similar things for years. As a matter of fact, it is impossible for the leading black liberation theology church in Chicago, where Farrakhan has his home base, not to have praised Farrakhan and similar black nationalists. If Cohen didn’t care about it when Obama was elected to Senate and becoming a much – needed celebrity for the Democratic Party the past four years, he certainly doesn’t care about it now. Just like he didn’t care about the ties that Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP leader Kwiese Mfume had with the Nation of Islam. Mfume, you see, wasn’t running against Bill Clinton’s wife.

Of course, the goal of this is to put Obama in a no – win situation. First of all, associating Barack HUSSEIN Obama with the “black Muslim” radical Farrakhan reminds white voters of things like Barack HUSSEIN Obama having an African Muslim father (and stepfather) and spending a few years in a Muslim school in Indonesia. Now the Nation of Islam is every bit the pseudo – Islam as Trinity United is pseudo – Christianity, but Cohen (and the Clintons) are banking on your typical Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, etc. white primary voter not knowing this.

Second, suppose Obama chooses not to respond. The line then becomes that JUST MAYBE Obama loves Farrakhan and hates Jews. That brings the fact that Obama, for a host of legitimate reasons that I will not get into, is known to be more sympathetic to the Palestinians and less sympathetic to Israel than most prominent politicians from the backburner to the forefront. Now this has not been a major issue so far primarily because Cohen and the rest of the left have been far more willing to countenance anti – Israel and pro – Palestinian voices than in the past because of spite against the pro – Israel Republican evangelical Christians. (More than a few Jewish leaders, and not all of them liberal, have even found backing a Palestinian state and risking the almost certain destruction of Israel as a result preferable to having to thank evangelical Christians for defending Israel.) This makes support for Israel a prominent political consideration in the Democratic Party that is less than two years removed from running off Joe Lieberman again. The thing is that even if Barack HUSSEIN Obama does what is required of him, Jews will have to think long and hard about whether to support the “risky unknown unproven black guy from Chicago with the African Muslim name” or “stick with the safe proven fighter for Israel and Jewish interests Hillary Clinton.” Please recall: a major hindrance with Jews in choosing between black and white candidates is the fear that whenever black interests and Jewish interests collide, that the black elected official will side with his own people. Needless to say, no threat of that exists if the elected official is Jewish or Caucasian Gentile. And that was the point of Cohen’s rehashing the “black – Jewish coalition” during the civil rights era, to the point of stating rather hyperbolically “Martin Luther King, Jr. always stood up against anti – Semitism and for Israel” and the utterly ridiculous charge “Obama’s failing to speak out would be like stomping on Goodman and Schwerner’s graves!” Being a well educated black man with strong ties to the civil rights community, Obama needs no history lesson from Cohen, and Cohen knows this. Instead, its purpose was to send a clear message to Jewish Democrats – of which there are not a few especially in the key February 5th Florida primary that will basically make or break Hillary Clinton’s campaign as Nevada is expected to be inconclusive, she is toast in South Carolina and Georgia, and she has been forced to use up her best ammunition (crying, attacks on Obama’s SUPERIOR qualifications) – that the appropriate thing to do is to vigorously support and promote Clinton regardless of what Obama does, and that they can do so without guilt and with demands that there be no recriminations from the black community and demand that our leadership lie down and take its place behind every other coalition on the left (labor, feminists, Jews, environmentalists, homosexuals, atheists) just like always. Well consider that when a lot of prominent Jews such as Lieberman (and Cohen) started opposing affirmative action because blacks were taking too many college spots away from Jews and when they joined the right wing hatemongers to defend Jewish Ivy League student Eden Jacobowitz’s yelling “hey you black water buffalo, if you want to act like animals you should go to the zoo!” at black black students for the “crime” of interrupting his studying, the past sacrifices of those like Goodman and Schwerner were invoked to deal with any guilt over those issues as well.

Third, suppose Obama disavows his church, Farrakhan, or both. First of all, his doing so will not prevent Jewish political leaders from backing Hillary Clinton. Second, and almost as important, it keeps the race issue alive, and that always benefits Hillary Clinton. Doing it in a way that keeps Hillary Clinton out of the picture so that she cannot be accused of race baiting or benefitting from the practice? Even better! And in a manner that will allow the media – especially the many in the media (and have ready access to it) that are supporting Hillary Clinton, like Gloria Steinem, who made the ridiculous claim that wealthy white women like her have had it harder than black men, and got away with it because of black leaders so fear crossing swords with white feminists because they know who will win that battle in the leftist coalition EVERY SINGLE TIME to start the “is Barack Obama black enough?” and to start sticking a microphone in the face of every black primary voter in South Carolina asking “Is Barack Obama a sellout for denouncing the man who led the Million Man March?”

Anything that takes the attention away from the fact that electing Hillary Clinton would mean continuing the past 20 years of this country being governed by utterly corrupt members of the same two families that are actually great friends (please note that Bill Clinton did not prosecute George H. W. Bush over Iran – Contra and that George W. Bush did not prosecute Bill Clinton over Chinagate … if Hillary Clinton gets elected do not think that she will go after George W. Bush over his scandals) and support basically the same policies (click here to read “The Bush-Clinton Dynasty by Chuck Baldwin) is good for Hillary Clinton. So is not talking about how not only did she vote for the Iraq War, but her husband used the same rationale as did George W. Bush – weapons of mass destruction – for bombing Iraq during his impeachment hearings. So is not talking about how she supports the death penalty, three strikes laws, and welfare reform. Or how “the great Clinton economy” was nothing more than companies ripping off hundreds of billions of dollars – much of it retirement fund money – through the stock market on Pets.com schemes, and how the Enron scandal (and remember Enron executives contributed heavily to the Clintons!) actually began during the Clinton administration, and how the current mortgage crisis was created by lenders desperate to recover the capital that they lost when the dot.com bubble (that the Clinton administration encouraged every step of the way and even took credit for helping create) burst. And no, it is not talking about how under the Clinton the September 11th hijackers all entered the country and did their training all while our huge national security apparatus was monitoring them. That was why the attacks were attributed to Al Qaeda almost immediately, long before they took responsibility for them.

This is not to say that Obama would be any better on these or other issues. But these issues are compelling reasons to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton. Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton will govern just as her husband did. As a matter of fact, she has actually used that fact as a major part of her platform (refusing to acknowledge that her husband is not nearly as popular as is portrayed, with most of his “popularity” due to dislike of the other side). Instead, her message has been “even though I am going to continue the same evil policies that have been disastrous for the country in every way as have my husband and both Bushes since 1988, my being the first female president would make it all different and better!”

The lesson for Christians in this incident is clear: do not be conformed to the world or the ways in it. Else you will be party to its wickedness.

Posted in anti - Semitism, atheism, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, bigotry, Christianity, feminism, Hillary Clinton, Islam, Judaism, media conspiracy, Muslim, NAACP, politics, racism, terrorism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments »

Was The Pope Jewish?

Posted by Job on January 13, 2008

From Dr. Randy Weiss of Crosstalk.com, who can be reached at randy@crosstalk.org

Judaism brought much to the world of first century
Christianity. I want to explain one bold claim that I
regularly make in my own efforts to cause Christians to
reconsider the facts. I have been quoted many times for
a declaration that sounds odd, yet helps call attention
to a realistic issue. I have said: The first fifteen
popes were Jewish! I state this for effect to establish
the fact that those who assume the Church was not
inhabited by Jews are sadly mistaken. Of course this
requires some explanation.

Eusebius, one of the most famous ancient historians of
the early Church, details that the Jerusalem Church
(the first Church) was led by Jewish bishops until the
Roman invasion under Hadrian (approximately one hundred
years after the death of Jesus). Permit me to quote his
record and provide the names of the first fifteen
Jewish leaders of the original Church in Jerusalem. It
seems that their identity and their Jewishness have
been forgotten by most Gentile Christians.

There were fifteen successions of bishops in that
church, all which, they say, were Hebrews from the
first, and received the knowledge of Christ pure and
unadulterated; so that, in the estimation of those who
were able to judge they were well approved, and worthy
of the episcopal office. For at that time the whole
church under them, consisted of faithful Hebrews who
continued from the time of the apostles, until the
siege took place . . . The first, then, was James
called the brother of our Lord; after whom, the second
was Simeon, the third Justus, the fourth Zaccheus, the
fifth Tobias, the sixth Benjamin, the seventh John, the
eighth Matthew, the ninth Philip, the tenth Seneca, the
eleventh Justus, the twelfth Levi, the thirteenth
Ephres, the fourteenth Joseph, and finally, the
fifteenth Judas. These are all the bishops of Jerusalem
that filled up the time from the apostles until the
abovementioned time, all of the circumcision.

Each name of each Jewish bishop going all the way back
to James, the brother of Jesus is listed in an unbroken
line of Jewish bishops that lasted until the early
decades of the second century. In the earliest era of
the Church, the leaders of the Church were called
bishops. The term “Pope” was not used as it is
currently understood until much later (perhaps as late
as the ninth century). However, Jewish “Popes,”
such as Clement, the third alleged to succeed Saint
Peter, were even included within the lineage that the
Church of Rome used to trace their line of Popes
allegedly unbroken all the way back to the Jewish
fisherman. In a very real sense, the Jewish believers
used to run the show and fill the pews. How did we get
left out of modern Christianity? The Jewish leadership
of the Early Church is undeniable and should be
remembered.

Jewish bishops in Jerusalem were obviously the norm
when the primary population of the Church consisted of
Jewish people. What some might find interesting is that
now after nearly 1,900 years, Jerusalem once again has
a Jewish bishop. During Pope John Paul’s visit to
Israel in the spring of 2000, he appointed Benedictine
Abbot Jean-Baptiste Gourion to the position of bishop
at a Catholic church near Jerusalem. He was born in
1934 to a Jewish family in Algeria. This book does
contain some critical comments about Pope John Paul II.
However, I believe he deserves recognition for his
foresight in appointing a Jewish bishop to the region
at this critical time in history. I can only hope that
the next pope also grows in sensitivity to the Jewish
people and the problems facing modern Israel.

Some Christian scholars continue to misinterpret the
circumstances whereby Jewish leadership of the Early
Church dissipated. William MacDonald presumes that the
“internationals” hastily took over from the
children of “faithful Abraham.” He is not exactly
correct. “Father Abraham” had many sons; some of
them ran the Church. He ignores that “in the middle
of the first century” the New Testament was not yet
written. Paul was still in the middle of his
evangelistic efforts. It should not be presumed, as is
often accepted, that the Temple and the Church were
“polarized around the Lord Jesus Christ”
immediately following Pentecost. Unquestionably, this
polarization occurred, however, it was nearly a century
after that first Pentecost of the Church age featured
in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

The dictates of Rome during that century show how the
prevailing worldview differentiated Jews from
Christians–they did not! The Jews of the era were not
separate and distinct from the Christians of that time.
When the Jews of Rome were expelled by Claudius, the
Christians and Jews were all viewed the same–as Jews.
The behavior of Rome against the Jews affected the
Christians exactly as it did the rest of the Jews in
the empire. In the eyes of Rome, Christianity was
“indistinguishable from the synagogue.”

One need not look beyond the New Testament account in
the Acts of the Apostles to understand the situation.
When Paul came to Corinth in Acts 18:2, he visited with
two Jewish Christians, Aquila and Priscilla. They had
recently left Rome. Their exit was due to an edict by
Claudius demanding that all the Jews of Rome be
expelled. F. F. Bruce makes clear that they were not
converts of the Apostle Paul. Rather, they had become
Christians while living in Rome. In fact, the edict by
Claudius to expel the Jews was likely the result of the
propagation of Christianity among the ranks of the
Jewish community in Rome. This conclusion is justified
by “the natural inference from the statement of
Suetonius that ‘because the Jews of Rome were
indulging in constant riots at the instigation of
Chrestus (impulsore Chresto) he expelled them from the
city.’ ”

From Dr. Randy Weiss of Crosstalk.com, who can be reached at randy@crosstalk.org

The early Jewish Christians were certainly included as
one category of Jews among many sects of Judaism.
“Christianity was indistinguishable from Judaism in
the time of Claudius.” However, this condition did
not remain stagnant. “It was perfectly
distinguishable by the time Suetonius wrote (c. A.D.
120), and it was well known that it had been founded by
Christ (Christus, not unnaturally confused with the
common slave-name Chrestus, which was pronounced in
practically the same way).

Copyright 2005 by Randy Weiss, Ph.D.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Posted in anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, beast, Bible, catholic, Christianity, false doctrine, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, false teaching, Judaism, Messianic Judaism | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 935 other followers

%d bloggers like this: