Monday, May 23, 2011

Why not go back to Israel’s 63BC lines?


It never ceases to amaze His Grace: for every post he writes on just about any matter, there is usually reasoned consensus or intelligent criticism from diverse individuals who appreciate intelligent and erudite comment on matters religio-political. Yet when he writes about Israel, he receives insults and hate-mail (“Zionist Nazi”); his faith is called into doubt (“No Christian would...”); and otherwise silent communicants become rather assertive and dogmatic about the Lord’s perspective (“Jesus would never...”).

Last week, the President of the United States was clear in his view. He said: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states." By ‘1967 lines’ he meant ‘pre-1967’, ie, Israel’s security is dependent on returning to the situation before the Six-Day War and reverting essentially to Israel’s 1949 armistice lines.

This has been soundly rejected by Benyamin Netanyahu: “While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines because these lines are indefensible,” he said.

But don’t just blame intransigent and hard-hearted Jews: Hamas have also responded on behalf of the Palestinians, declaring: “The US administration will fail, just as all others have in the past, in forcing Hamas to recognise the occupation.” Their spokesman observed that President Obama's speech showed that the US was ‘not a friend to the people of the region’ (ie Palestinians).

The President’s plan for a peace based on Israel’s 1967 lines is already in tatters. So His Grace has a better proposal: Why not revert to the pre-63 BC lines? This was the year the Romans invaded Israel and Judah and divided the land into regional jurisdictions (Galilee, Judaea etc). Understandably, the inhabitants of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were not overly happy having to live under alien occupation, subjugated to Roman rule. Tensions began to rise which led to the ‘Great Revolt’ of AD 67 when the Jews decided to take on the might of Rome. In AD 70, Jerusalem was invaded and the Romans destroyed the Temple (has Berlusconi ever apologised for this atrocity?). Things reached breaking point in AD 132, when Jews were ethnically cleansed from the region and the Romans officially renamed the whole land ‘Palaestina’ (purposely and provocatively as an insult to the Jews; the Philistines being Israel’s most dangerous enemy prior to unification).

Readers and communicants will see from the above map (click for clearer view) that the tribes of Simeon and Judah actually predated the establishment of ‘Palestine’: the Jew was in Judaea long before the invention of the race now known as ‘Palestinians’. After Roman rule, whenever Jews attempted to reclaim their homeland their communities were destroyed and they were exiled. The pogrom continued under the Byzantines, Crusaders, Ottoman Turks, British, and the modern Egyptians. In all the heated talk of ‘occupation’ and ‘illegal Jewish settlements’ , you rarely hear about the indigenous Jewish populations of Gaza and the West Bank: all sympathies are with Hamas and Fatah, both of whom are pathologically programmed (if not constitutionally pledged and theologically dedicated) to finishing what was begun millennia ago: the extermination of the Jews and the eradication of the State of Israel.

The history of this region is fiendishly complex and solutions to seemingly intractable problems will not be found in crass geopolitical policy objectives which only take account of the most recent shifts in territorial lines. Israel is an historic nation: Palestine is a relatively recent invention. Only a sophist politician, ignorant of the history, steeped in moral relativism and with an eye on re-election, could reduce the existential threat faced by Israel to a trivial game of Risk.

90 Comments:

Blogger English Viking said...

The sooner Israel forcibly removes the 'Palestinians' from their borders, the better.

Then they make a start on Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iran.

Hopefully, once the world has been given a demonstration of the huge improvements gained by removing the adherent of islam from a country, other nations will follow suit.

23 May 2011 at 11:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 May 2011 at 11:04  
Blogger Peter O said...

Going back to 1949 borders would mean giving the West Bank to Jordan and the Gaza strip to Egypt. The fact that no-one on the "Evil Israelis" side is suggesting this indicates that they themselves do not believe in a reversion to 1949 borders.

Given that the real 1949/1967 solution (West Bank back to Jordan etc) is not actually on the table, it is not unreasonable that a new settlement independent of the 1949 borders be found. Just put the border where the wall is. Job done.

23 May 2011 at 11:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Pre-63 BC lines?

Outstanding!!!

23 May 2011 at 11:16  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Thank you again Cranmer for giving people the informed long view of this region & conflict.

Those who think this dispute started in 1947 or 1912, or any time in the last millennia are completely & utterly deluded.

As are those who think that this is purely a political or geographical dispute. It is above all else a religious dispute.

Anyone who does not know who Isaac and Ishmael are or what their significance is will never understand the source of the conflict and will never be able to help resolve it. This isn't a dispute about lines on a map, but about lines in hearts & souls that have been ingrained for 1000's of years (not helped by a mendacious war-mongering cult leader from Mecca).

Peace will eventually come to Israel through one man ... and that's when we need to start getting really worried & take flight!

23 May 2011 at 11:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Rebel Saint

Brilliant post!

23 May 2011 at 11:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 May 2011 at 11:30  
Anonymous FrankSW said...

And the Americans can revert back to their post war of independence borders in 1783 returning large tracts of the USA back to rightful Indian rule.

Not quite sure how they will deal with "american" settlements such as Chicago or San Francisco though.

23 May 2011 at 11:31  
Anonymous bluedog said...

An equitable solution to an enduring problem, Your Grace, to be known henceforth as 'The Cranmer Declaration'.

23 May 2011 at 11:51  
Anonymous +Dewi Menevia said...

@ FrankSW

Brilliant idea.

And whilst we're at it, why not give the Celtic Britons back the borders they had prior to the invasion of the genocidal Teutonic tribes in the Dark Ages?

It would certainly make my ongoing ministry a lot easier.

23 May 2011 at 11:59  
Blogger Drew_Mac said...

I have never believed that a 'Two State solution' would bring peace - it would simply enshrine mutual hostility, land grabs and further 'ethnic cleansing'.

Time for someone to encourage a 'One Nation, One People' approach which is fully viable in economic terms and has a secular pluralism welcoming to all the people of the land. Very like what already exists in the modern state of Israel where Jew, Arab and Christian co-exist to mutual benefit.

The final icing on the cake would be to declare Jerusalem a 'World City' with a status rather like the Vatican - a shared city of peace for the Abahamic Faiths. Is that a dream too far?

23 May 2011 at 12:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Drew Mac

Yes.

It is in discord with 'The Cranmer Declaration' (Buledog (23 May 2011)).

23 May 2011 at 12:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are we further simplifying the debate to 'who was here first' if that's the prefered angle then the nascent American state must give up the majority of it's land to the native Indians.

Not all Palestians or indeed Muslims want the Israeli state eradicated, Ahmedinijad doesn't speak for the majority. Life and liberty are rights that are regardless of religion.

23 May 2011 at 12:14  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"An equitable solution" bluedog? What solution:

"...solutions to seemingly intractable problems will not be found in ...objectives which only take account of the most recent shifts in territorial lines."

"Only a sophist politician...with an eye on re-election, could reduce the existential threat faced by Israel to a trivial game of Risk."

Are members of the UK Cabinet or those upon whom they rely for what they say write and do free from this contamination?

23 May 2011 at 12:17  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Mr. Menevia - haven't you read any of the recent work by Oxford geneticists? The DNA tests that indicate we're all predominantly Celtic?** Somebody else (of froglike dimensions) did in most of your mythical Teutons - of whom there may not have been that many in the first place. In the north and northeast, a slightly higher Germanic percentage persists, but we're still largely Celtic, Sykes says.

So your problem would appear to be that your particular Celtic tribe didn't ever manage to eliminate us Celtic tribes in the other parts of the island.....

Maybe it's time you got over it, and we all worked together against the neu and very unholy roman empire?


**Sykes and Oppenheimer.

23 May 2011 at 12:34  
Anonymous graham wood said...

"The history of this region is fiendishly complex and solutions to seemingly intractable problems will not be found in crass geopolitical policy objectives" Agreed.

But as you point out in AD 70 the Temple was destroyed and Jerusalem razed to the ground.
It's important to grasp from this fact that, in accordance with Jesus' prophetic words in Luke 21, and more importantly the parable of the 'Wicked Husbandmen', legitimate Jewish claims to the "land" of Israel (whatever the boundaries) were forever terminated.
God had fulfilled his promises of possession to Abraham and Joshua.
Their retention of the same was conditional on obedience to God's terms in the covenant.
That they forfeited.
Modern Israel is a largely secular and godless State, though the only democracy in the Middle East.
For that reason alone it deserves support - but not at the expense of Palestinian autonomy and bsic human rights.

23 May 2011 at 12:48  
Anonymous non mouse said...

cont'd

...Perhaps that's also a roamin' empire.

Whatever - it's not the Judaeo-Christian variety that we have espoused so well, and sympathised with hitherto. And to which we owe so very much.

23 May 2011 at 12:55  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

This month's edition of the Reader magazine contains an article by a Reader who has visited Israel and writes implicitly critical of the Israeli Defensive wall and its effect on the Palestinians.

My most recent overseas visit tunes me into a different perspective. I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau. You get a different and equally valid historic perspective from there.

Watching a large tour party from Israel walking the camp I could not help thinking that all who place their trust in UN Resolutions and Peace treaties might not do so quite so easily if their families had been decimated there.

With Libyan Arabs raping their own peoples in their conflict and the mobs in Egypt attacking Coptic Churches I will never criticise any Israeli who says - "You keep the treaties - we keep the F16s".

23 May 2011 at 13:13  
Anonymous Gordo said...

What have they got on you?

23 May 2011 at 13:19  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Drew_Mac

While I am generally a great fan of secular pluralism, and wouldn't even go further in saying that that I'm not a great fan of overt nationalism, I'm afraid that given the ingrained anatgonisms and lack of devotion to secularism or pluralism on both sides that it just isn't going to happen anytime soon. Similarly I don't think any one side will be able to deliver a knock out blow that will beat the other into submission - and if they tried I suspect the consequences for the world are too horrible to contemplate. So in the meantime and the real world we have to fall back on a two state solution - and someone has to make a starting bid as to where negotiations should start.

I suspect that Obama's starting position has a rather stronger grasp on reality than that of Cranmers - especially given that we already have defacto statelets in Gaza and the West Bank. Does Cranmer recognise that it is possible to resolve disputes by compromise - especially when outright war and hostilty haven't succeeded?

23 May 2011 at 13:19  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

A silly and wilfully prevocative 'proposal'.

And why not go back to the tribal boundaries pre-1800's of the Native Indians of America or the Aboriginal peoples of Australia?

The 'claim' to Israel is based on the Bible and God setting it aside for his people. Admittedly a pretty strong entitlement if you accept the authority of the Bible. But not everyone does and there are many things in this secular age that contravene Holy Writ.

Are Israelis God's people today? It is a liberal democratic, secular state and has been since its illegal inception in 1948. As such, it should abide by international law and participate in secular attempts to establish peace in the region.

It's birth came about as a result of ignoring an international mandate. Part of the Balfour Declaration included protection of the rights of the Palestians:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

There are many Biblical references to the Jewish people being a hard headed and stubborn people. As true today as it was yesterday.

23 May 2011 at 13:23  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Gordo said...
"What have they got on you?"

More likely he's been at the communion wine this morning!

23 May 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

Why can't you just give war a chance?

23 May 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Balfour reneged, Ramsay MacDonald reneged, it was shelved while the British refused to recognise what Herr Hitler was up to until it suited them and then Attlee tried to renege on the promises as well. It is a well documented fact that the keys to the arsenals were handed to the Palestinian/Jordanian officials also on public record - but in classic British political style, not acknowledged or mentioned - as fully intending to "drive all Jews from the land and into the sea."

Cranmer is right, the Jews have no reason to trust anyone and especially no reason to trust Britain or the UN. Anyone who does not know that the Arabs claim Abram/Ibrahim expelled his "real" wife, the slave girl Hagar and her son Ishmael in favour of the "slave" Sara and her son Isaac, doesn't even begin to understand the problem here.

To the CoE Reader who wrote to the Reader Magazine - my copy just to hand, I too say, visit Auschwitz and Birkenau, then tell me the Jews have nothing to fear and should 'embrace' those who have vowed to wipe them from the face of the earth.

The 'Palestinian People' are a political invention. Pre-1948 they were Jordanian, Lebanese or Egyptian. Post 1948 the Arab nations saw a chance to foster and foment anti-western and anti-Jew feeling by creating this 'displaced' populace and keeping them in fetid 'Refugee Camps.' The 'Palestinians' themselves have fallen for their own propaganda and become the victims of the manipulations of their own people.

Britain and its leaders have nothing to be proud of in this conflict, their hands are as bloody as those of Hamas. Attlee was of the opinion he could sacrifice the Jews to curry favour with the Arabs and it backfired.

For the record, the so-called Mosque atop the Temple mount is a Christian Church, taken over and desecrated in the Muslim conquest. Will it be returned to the Christian community there?

Hell might suffer an ice-age first.

23 May 2011 at 13:59  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@ D Singh

"Why can't you just give war a chance?"

I was under the impression we had. What happened to love thy neighbour?

23 May 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Love requires confrontation with evil - and sometimes that takes war.

Now that I've given you a 'partial' answer; will you tell me what Dostoyevsky meant when he said: "The world will be saved by beauty"?

23 May 2011 at 15:03  
Anonymous Michael Fowke said...

What if every country went back to the borders it had before it invaded or was invaded by another country? It would be a nightmare!

23 May 2011 at 15:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Outstanding post!
You have no equal on the blogosphere for discernment and faithfulness towards Israel.
Bless You, old boy.

Ernst Blofeld

23 May 2011 at 15:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does your Grace think about the Palestinians themselves? Do you believe they have been fairly treated by Israel?

And as for complaining about the level of debate - have you read the bilge pumped out by your supporters in the comments above?

23 May 2011 at 15:44  
Anonymous len said...

"There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough".

- Joseph Farah, "Myths of the Middle East" -

23 May 2011 at 15:55  
Anonymous Broadwood said...

@ Graham Wood -

"legitimate Jewish claims to the "land" of Israel (whatever the boundaries) were forever terminated.
God had fulfilled his promises of possession to Abraham and Joshua.
Their retention of the same was conditional on obedience to God's terms in the covenant.
That they forfeited. "

If this is true, why do we have Ezekiel 35-39,not to mention large chunks of Isaiah, all of Zechariah, etc, etc.

As St Paul said "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Romans 11v29 - read the whole chapter, if you dare!

National Israel may indeed currently have a largely secular character, but its very existence is undeniably prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes. How else can you explain the fact that Israel was not wiped out in 1948 or 1967?

23 May 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Are Israelis God's people today?"

Are you serious? My anger in matters like this is historical blindness from people who should know better.

Were it not for the deafening silence from the pulpits of RC and protestant pulpits, maybe Hitler might have been halted but that old unbiblical chestnut, Replacement Theology (the Church IS Israel), ensured the atrocities occurred.

Hence the current state called Israel.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for
good to them that love God

The Lord brings good out of evil for those who love Him as He establishes His purpose and honours His promises that cannot be broken.

"There are many Biblical references to the Jewish people being a hard headed and stubborn people. As true today as it was yesterday."

Revelation 2:18-29. DITTO and indeed, my RCC communicant.

Ernst

23 May 2011 at 16:08  
Blogger Henry_Tree said...

"Two decades ago Israel was told that it was Israeli troops in the Judea, Samaria and Gaza that was enraging Muslims.
A decade ago Israel was told that it was Jews just living in those places in their Jewish houses that was enraging Muslims.
Today, Israel is being told that it is Jews living in Jerusalem that is enraging Muslims.
Tomorrow, if Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, as Israel did from Gaza, and Israelis huddle in the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station, it will soon be discovered that the only thing that will appease Muslim wrath is the handover of the Tel Aviv Central Bus Station. Go figure."

23 May 2011 at 16:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 May 2011 at 16:28  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Broadwood said ...
"National Israel may indeed currently have a largely secular character, but its very existence is undeniably prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes. How else can you explain the fact that Israel was not wiped out in 1948 or 1967?"

What dangerous thinking! It implies God wants Israel, brought her 'miraculously' back into being in 1948 as a State, supported her military campaign in 1967 and so she should be supported regardless of her behaviour.

Money, support from the West for military and strategic reasons and superior weapons - this was behind the Balfour Declaration and has been the reason for support ever since.

I'm not convinced God would support the Israeli intransigence in settling boundary disputes.

Not all Arab leaders are blood thirsty war mongers intent on the final distruction of Israel! Whilst this misconception prevails Israel and the West will never resolve this issue and another war is inevitable.

Perhaps this is what the evangelical christians are expecting. Armaggedon before the 'rapture'. Their perspective indicates this and the financial and political support they give Israel.

Aren't the Jews 'supposed' to convert to Christianity before Christ's return? Or is this a secret?

I believe the Jewish people have a special place in God's heart having been prepared for the birth of His Son and receiving His original convenants. They may have a significant role yet to play in history, who knows? Seeking a peaceful settlement that gives the Palestinians a state, is surely a a possibility. Mind you, Judas played a key part in Christ's murder.

This isn't 1000 BC and Israel have a duty to the whole world to behave decently and stop seeing all Arabs as their enemies intent on their destruction. The world wouldn't stand by and permit this. Do we want a WW3 centred on Israel's right to exist?

Maybe some do.

23 May 2011 at 16:37  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Revelation 2:18-29. DITTO and indeed, my RCC communicant."

Now I know you've lost touch with reality!

23 May 2011 at 16:41  
Blogger Owl said...

Well said Henry_Tree.
Gradualism, another form of the thin end of the wedge, seems to be the weapon of today.

I have to disagree with Dodo, the Israelis should not give an inch as the Arabs will take the mile.

Why do the neighbouring Arab states not welcome their Palastinian brothers into their own countries?

23 May 2011 at 16:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles

Does God keep His promises or not? These were clear and unequivacal promises made by Christ Himself to Peter and the Apostles.

"And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Pretty clear that Peter and his successors were given the authority of heaven to determine doctrine on earth and it would be so in heaven.

"I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all truth."

Is Catholicism, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy wrong? They differ in how these promises should be understood but not in the promises.

And do avoid 'Oh sola mia.!

23 May 2011 at 16:51  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@len

"Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Iraqis, etc."

That may be - but people in Cornwall are often indistinguishable from those in Newcastle. And Serbs were often indistinguishable from Croats and Bosnians. And I daresay len may be mistaken for someone living many miles away. However, this is not an argument for moving people by force from where they and their ancestors have lived for a period. Neither is what religion they may or may not belong to.

23 May 2011 at 16:59  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Graham Wood said:

"legitimate Jewish claims to the "land" of Israel (whatever the boundaries) were forever terminated.
God had fulfilled his promises of possession to Abraham and Joshua.
Their retention of the same was conditional on obedience to God's terms in the covenant.
That they forfeited. "

To which Broadwood replied:
If this is true, why do we have Ezekiel 35-39,not to mention large chunks of Isaiah, all of Zechariah, etc, etc.

As St Paul said "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Romans 11v29 - read the whole chapter, if you dare!

GW. I believe you are correct in that many of the OT prophets, including Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, all have numerous references to Israel returning to their land. However, if you look carefully at each context you will discover that these refer to Israel's return after the Babylonian captivity of 70 years.
They have nothing to do with 1948 !
All of these prohpets spoke of God's judgment, but then of their restoration and return. (see also Nehemiah)

Romans 11. I am familiar with the whole of the chapter. Once again the context is all important which nowhere speaks of Jewish restoration to the "land" after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.
"The gifts and callings.... refer to God's continued love for his ancient people, and the whole chapter answers the false charge (11:1) that God has not "cast away his people".
Romans 11 is primarily about God's saving a remnant of Jews through faith in Christ, in spite of the rejection of their Messiah as a nation.
I hope that helps?

23 May 2011 at 17:01  
Anonymous len said...

Replacement Theology is an evil that has 'endorsed'and encouraged
anti- Semitism through the ages.Replacement theologians say that in Old Testament times, God worked through physical Israel; and in the New Testament He worked through so-called spiritual Israel, meaning the church. The Jews once were God’s Chosen People, but now they are the rejected people of covenant curses. The Gentiles who were ignorant in the Old Testament are now the chosen people.
A tremendous amount of violence has been done to the Jewish people in the 'name of the Lord'.And it is because of 'replacement' theology that 'Christians 'have justified their actions.
And yes, I do know that Luther was involved in this, much to his shame.
Has God finished with the Jewish people ? Certainly not!.
The Church has not replaced Israel; just as infant baptism has not replaced circumcision. Israel is Israel, and the Church is the Church. God will fulfill all His promises to Israel, as He will fulfill all His promises to the Church. We need to stop mixing the two, or replacing the one with the other, as has so often happened in the past.

23 May 2011 at 17:05  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I still think the Philistines aka {pelasgi/pelaset} got a bad press at the hands of Semitic chroniclers. The Phoneacians were a direct result of sea peoples knowledge. how British sea faring history fits in with that

Return to 63BC by all means but lets have a broader study of how British sea faring history fits into that picture.

23 May 2011 at 17:09  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dewi Menevi @ 1.59:

Yet again I urge the reading of Stephen Oppenheimer's book ''The Origins of the British'' - until you do do, you'll just be repeating the same tired old falsehoods of history.

Your ''genocidal teutonic tribes'' existed in Britain for thousands of years prior to the so-called dark-ages.

I've just noticed that non-mouse has said as such from another angle. (no pun intended)

You can't argue with genetics!

23 May 2011 at 17:16  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Len said: Replacement Theology is an evil that has 'endorsed'and encouraged anti- Semitism through the ages.Replacement theologians say that in Old Testament times, God worked through physical Israel; and in the New Testament He worked through so-called spiritual Israel, meaning the church.

Len. I do not think that is an accurate statement. Anti-semitism is indeed repugnant and anti Christian, but its not due to a "theology" per se. One can hold to wrong theology but still retain a stance of grace and acceptance toward those with whome one differs.
Rather its due to a continuing sinful attitude on the part of some professing Christians, as well as a complete failure to recognise some crucial NT teaching as to the abolition of all ethnic divisions between Jew and Gentile (See Ephesians 2:12-22 asnd Galatians 3:28)
Replacement theology? Certainly we can say without contradiction that in terms of God's redemptive purposes in history, the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant as the writer to the Hebrews discusses in some depth.
Hebrews 8:6-13 surely is our starting point and one example of a major replacement - there are many others.

23 May 2011 at 17:36  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The Gray Monk 13:59_ Well said, but some overstatement in "For the record, the so-called Mosque atop the Temple mount is a Christian Church, taken over and desecrated in the Muslim conquest."?

According to other sources, the present structure replaces a more primitive mosque which had been erected on the reputed site of a Christian Church after the city had been taken by the followers of the deceased

Mohamet.

And have the observant Jews no claim adverse to the Christians? And which Christians, by the way: representatives of pilgrims, or the same as have difficulty in accomodating each other at the Holy Sepulchre?

Would it not be for those who regard the Bible as relevant to engage in prayer for guidance? The Lord's guidance as recorded there shows that one stage has successively been a preparation for another.

As for proposing "solutions" for the present crisis... are there enough armchairs to go round here?

23 May 2011 at 17:37  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I would be happy to return to before Jewish Miliband signed the Lisbon treaty

Or before Jewish Disraeli decided the British constitution didn't suit him.

What about returning to before Moses was set free.

Lets return to before the flood.

23 May 2011 at 17:52  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Ancient Pillar Stones of Scotland: Their Significance and Bearing on Ethnology by George Moore

Now thats a book worth reading Oswin, the Newton Stone a British history little known.

23 May 2011 at 18:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like a Kerryman, I will answer your question with another question.
The other question is "And have another 70 A.D.?".
Silvestris.

23 May 2011 at 18:02  
Blogger Cork said...

You have as usual written an erudite and thought provoking blog. I do not always agree with you but it has to be said that you I do on this issue. What mystifies me is why Bummer O'Bama should wish to alienate the only extant democracy in the Middle East at a time when other countries in the region are in turmoil. It surely can't be to appease the likes of Hamas since as you point out Hamas is bent on the destruction of Israel. What also mystifies me is the support Hague has given to Bummer's policy. Is it to do with oil? To set a platform for dialogue with other Muslim countries? Or is it just too clever by half?

23 May 2011 at 18:13  
Blogger OldSouth said...

'Only a sophist politician, ignorant of the history, steeped in moral relativism and with an eye on re-election, could reduce the existential threat faced by Israel to a trivial game of Risk.'

Well, yes, that is what we have here.

If'n hiz lips be movin', he be prevaricatin' 'bout sumpin'.

23 May 2011 at 18:16  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

The important thing to consider is that Israel is not a solely Jewish entity. In contains Muslims as well as Christians, who all have full rights as Israeli citizens. Therefore there is no reason why Muslims cannot live in peace and harmony with Jews, and Christians within the state of Israel.

Not only is there no logical reason why they should not, living in peace and harmony is precisely what the vast majority of Israeli Muslims, and Christians do in fact do.

I know because I have visited Israel a countless amount of times, over a 35 year period, and plan to do so again in the not too distant future.

I have talked to many Muslim taxi drivers, hotel and other small business owners, and have yet to hear a negative word about the state whence they gained their birth and infant nurture.

People are not the problem, as people as a very general rule just want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

Religious or otherwise conflicts are ALWAYS caused by other factors, most often these center around those who have something or much to gain from either starting or perpetuating murderous or otherwise conflicts.

Therefore working out why peace does not exist, or seems not to do so is reasonably easy. Just look for, and then identify those that have much to gain, working on the clear assumption that it is always the ordinary people who lose, and you have a better then 99% chance of knowing who the real culprits are.

As this conflict has now gone on for longer then any other in modern times, it would seen logical that the ruling elites of BOTH sides of the debate, like it this way.

Otherwise this conflict would have died a natural death not long after it started, or would have never started in the first place.

We now live in peace and harmony with The Germans and Japanese, who were at one not so distant time our worst possible enemies.

Yet we are apparently lead to believe that two peoples that share a very similar God, and have very similar traditions to each other, can not even begin to talk peace.

I personally don't believe what I am being told to believe. I suggest some of you lot become a little more critical in your thinking ASAP.

23 May 2011 at 18:20  
Anonymous Rob said...

what a wonderful idea, going back to pre-war borders. Maybe we can apply this elsewhere. The US can give Texas and California back to the Mexicans...go on Obama you lead the way. Better stil let Israel have the land they occupied under King Solomon, and all surrounding countries can go back to paying tribute to them.

23 May 2011 at 18:30  
Anonymous len said...

Graham Wood,
The 'church 'made a deliberate decision to move away from its Jewish roots.The church take for themselves the promises and blessings from the Jewish Bible, leaving the curses for the Jews. They truly believe that God has replaced Israel with the Church. To adopt this teaching you have to reject huge portions of scripture.
A deliberate position was taken by the Roman Emperor Constantine in AD 325 to nullify the Jewish Passover celebration; to dissociate it from Easter and cut off all connection with Judaism.


In the not-too-distant future, like the prodigal, the Jews as a nation will return to their Father and home, who said ‘And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart’ (Jeremiah 24:7)

It seems only part of the church operates in the new covenant, the majority seems to be operating in the old covenant ....still!.

23 May 2011 at 18:36  
Anonymous Rob said...

Your Grace
I have heard that the ancient Greeks loved a pun and so did the Romans. When they renamed Israel they used a word that sounded similar to the Greek Word for wrestling school. palaestra (παλαίστρα). Jacob was renamed Israel after wrestling with God. This word is closer to Palestine than Philistine. Just a point to ponder.

23 May 2011 at 18:37  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Len said:
The 'church 'made a deliberate decision to move away from its Jewish roots.The church take for themselves the promises and blessings from the Jewish Bible, leaving the curses for the Jews. They truly believe that God has replaced Israel with the Church. To adopt this teaching you have to reject huge portions of scripture.

It depends on what you mean by "church". Roman Catholic? Medieval English? Reformers? various 'denominations?
However you define 'church' it is fallible and comprised of sinners who at best see only 'through a glass darkly'.
It is Scripture, that is the whole of Scripture in both Old & New Testaments' which defines Gods' redemptive purposes, not any historical expression of the church.
"Replacement theology" is too simplistic a definition. A better proposition I suggest is:
"Does the church replace Israel as the instrument of God's saving purposes, or the centre of redemptive history?"
Answer: inevitably is 'yes it does.
I agree with you that historically the RC church certainly expressed much by way of anti Semitism and in its hatred of Jews certainly did "move away from its Jewish roots".
But Christians recognise the full authority of both testaments - the OT of course being the 'Bible of Christ, the Apostles and the early church.
When Jesus stated "I will build my Church....." he places it at the very centre of God's onward redemptive purpose. As I say, look at Ephesians 2!
What are the "huge portions of Scripture you say need to be rejected by those who accept so called 'replacement theology'?
I have not abandoned a single verse!

23 May 2011 at 18:59  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Last Dodo at 23 May 2011 16:37 wrote:

"This isn't 1000 BC and Israel have a duty to the whole world to behave decently and stop seeing all Arabs as their enemies intent on their destruction. The world wouldn't stand by and permit this."

Yes, actually, the world would stand by and permit this. The non-Western world doesn't care a tinker's dam about Israels' survival. The European powers are to a nation singularly incapable of intervening with military force even if they wanted to do so. Given the increasing Islamic presence in Europe, it is not clear they would even want to attempt intervention. The United States has the capacity to intervene, and would do so. Yet intervention cannot be accomplished in 24 hours. It takes time to move large military forces across the ocean.

It is the dimension of time that is so difficult to address. Israel has no capacity for defense in depth. It is a small country. If things go bad, it will crumble quickly. Most people do not realize just how close the Syrians came to breaking through the Golan in the first days of the '73 war. Several Syrian Armored divisions came close to an unopposed advance into Northern Israel before Israel could mobilize. So, yes, the US could intervene, and Europe might help, but the war might also be over before the intervention arrives. And over all this hangs the specter of Islamic nuclear weapons. Israel has a concentrated population. How many detonations would it take to effectively destroy the Israeli state?

The deal you would offer the Israelis is simple. Israel accepts a Palestinian state and all the security risks thereby entailed, and "we" (meaning the US, of course) will guarantee Israeli safety and survival. This would demand pre-positioning of 'coalition' (meaning US, of course) forces in Israel, and make the Israelis dependent for their survival on the perceived interests of an outside power. The Israelis will never accept this deal. At a minimum, they will demand the ability to guarantee their own survival. You will never convince them to place their continued existence into the hands of foreign politicians.

carl

23 May 2011 at 19:02  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

@Carl - don't sweat it, dude.

YG

1967 is on the table - however temporary but it's nice to rattle democratically elected politicians in public - good show bizness.

Obama just pulled a 6 speech into a 9 speech and it was because of honesty.

The Palestinian's have no authority to represent anybody. For there to be peace and negotiation there has to be stability and Abbas is old now. If they form council then that would be progress but at the moment they are gangsters with no hierarchy.

Obama did quite well in Ireland. His security detail was obviously shitting it at first as it's a 5 day trip but after 40 minutes on the walkabout, they were getting smiley photos with punters. Quality. If re-elected, he'll go there again. 30 million Oirish Democrat voters! There's money in them there hills!

DtP

23 May 2011 at 19:25  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Your Grace, your article is excellent and many good points are made here with carl jacobs bringing in some practicalities and truths many might not care to face.

Some of Your Grace's words have appeared in CiF Watch today in response to an article describing some "Christians" I would say are very far from loving their fellow men.

23 May 2011 at 20:02  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

Many Arabs (Muslim and Christian), now called Palestinians, were displaced as a result of the war which established the state of Israel. That was a horrible and brutal fact.

The Second World War displaced many millions of people in Europe, especially Germans, who were expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European states. If the Germans (under Western allied control and encouragement) had insisted on keeping these people in camps, not allowed to make new homes in Germany and had fed them a continual diet of propaganda, insisting on their "right of return", you have a parallel for the Palestinians' treatment.

Of course, there are groups in Germany which have this kind of agenda but they have not had the same strident, bellicose, overwhelming official, religious support and encouragement.

It is often forgotten that Western Europe, including Britain, absorbed many millions of displaced persons of different nationalities - with some difficulty but generally successfully. Perhaps the difference between the two situations was the inheritance of Christian charity in Europe. Islam, on the other hand, demands that land, once under Muslim rule, must be brought back under subjection. In these circumstance, the displaced Palestinians were treated by their neighbouring co-religionists ( who are not poor) as potential weapons for that purpose, rather than as people to be admitted fully into their societies and territories. For all the Muslim talk of brotherhood in the Umma, this sticks out like a sore thumb.

23 May 2011 at 20:05  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

carl jacobs said...
Last Dodo at 23 May 2011 16:37 wrote:
"... Israel have a duty to the whole world to behave decently and stop seeing all Arabs as their enemies intent on their destruction. The world wouldn't stand by and permit this."

"Yes, actually, the world would stand by and permit this... And over all this hangs the specter of Islamic nuclear weapons. Israel has a concentrated population. How many detonations would it take to effectively destroy the Israeli state?"

I think you'll find the UN wouldn't stand by! What are Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan about? It's not in the interests of USA or Europe for Israel to fall.

Sorry, but name the Arab State with WMD? Think we have the T-shirt on this one!

23 May 2011 at 20:06  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Interesting , although given 63bc would require Roman legion presence to create the unifying ecomonic trade ,I doubt Israel/surrounding empire would appreciate ,citizen ship esp post constantine.

I would think the bounus for both disagreeing parties would be the prospect of an economy that enabled them both to rush to killing and maiming each other.

I am still waiting for Hizbolla to unclench its fist , assuming that is Islam really does find peace so unbearable . A less toxic islam would perhaps be better all round , but alas it seems to insist on well funded limited vison ,that measures its own progress by the body count of martys and enemies alone.
The clerics and scholars in my view have failed to move islam into a different outlook/attitude which has not served its own people that well either.

It is a question that they must answer about how reform must enter into its attitude , as it is pretty obvious some islamic countries have missed whole decades of understanding.
Allah didnt proscribe the mobile phone or the motorcar , it cannot be in breech of all modernity ,including the closed response of default Jihad

23 May 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Genesis 10

1Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.

2The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

3And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

4And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

5By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Japheth-Gomer-Ashkenaz-Gentile

23 May 2011 at 20:40  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Borders 1845

US to return to 1845 Borders as Mexico demands........or to 1812 Borders as Canada demands

1812

23 May 2011 at 20:51  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 20.06 asked 'name the Arab State with WMD?'

The prima facie answer is none.

However the links between the Saudis and the Pakistanis, both Sunnis as you know, are increasingly close. Many pilots in the Saudi air Force are Pakistanis. The Saudis have frequently speculated about going nuclear in order to counter the nut-job in Iran. Currently the Saudis are protected by the Israeli nuclear umbrella, a mildly embrassing development for the keepers of the holy places.

It wouldn't take much to fly an atom bomb or two out of Pakistan and across the Arabian Sea to Saudi Arabia, The Pakistanis need the money too.

23 May 2011 at 21:53  
Anonymous MarkG said...

Although your general point is sound, your assertion that "the Jew was in Judaea long before the invention of the race now known as ‘Palestinians’" is rather contradicted both by your map above and by the Bible which it draws from. The map, in fact, clearly shows the Palestinians in the area, and they are regularly described as being there in various passages from the Old Testament. It's just that the map, together with most translations of the Scripture, uses the now-archaic spelling, initially promulgated by the KJV, of "Philistines".

23 May 2011 at 22:08  
Blogger angelaimaan said...

So many foolish, foolish comments. Occupation & terrorism are tactics employed by Israel. The excuse of a jewish homeland is pushed whilst much of the world stays silent to so many atrocities committed against the indigenous population of these lands.
The nonsensical argument of a non existent Palestine does not work on me, Arabs who to this day hold the keys & deeds to the land/property they were forced out of have every right to return. The fact so many ignorant people actually think israel's behavior is justifiable because of the holocaust are gravely mistaken. From as early as 1880 plans were being made by zionists to establish a homeland in Palestine. Ethiopa offered land which was knocked back-I wonder why???
Most monotheistic religions view this area as sacred, as a place for the chosen people. How after suffering the horrors of the holocaust people can then go on to imitate their enemy all in the name of God is beyond me! Surely the very fibre of moral decency is at an all time low when the world takes no action against the war crimes comitted in Gaza such as the use of white phosperous etc.
Peace is something very easily achievable but greed and the zionist mentality is the real problem which leaves apartheid in 2011.

23 May 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger Owl said...

angelaimaan,

Thank you for your observations.

I am glad to know that no one threatens or has threatened Israel and it has no need for defence.
The rockets fired from Gaza into Israel were obviously just some fireworks that went off course and the statements that some Arab leaders has made concerning wiping out Israel/Jews were just jokes for a laugh.
Pushing Israel/Jews into the sea was just an invitation to go bathing as it's sometimes very warm.

You know damn well that the Jews cannot afford to lose even once as the massacre would be horrendous.

We have seen a number of times Israel being attacked by it's friendly Arab neighbours. None of these friendly countries suffered any form of massacre on civilians when they lost the war(s) but this is what Israelis have to expect.

Jokers like you are sickening.

23 May 2011 at 22:46  
Blogger angelaimaan said...

come on!!!!! Are you for real???? Did you here me deny the rockets? No!!! My issue is if we were to tally up the deaths, the refugees even the sanctions upon the population (israeli or Palestinian)whom do you think comes out of this having suffered so much??? I for one am sick of the complete lack of impartiality shown throughout western media which in turn justifies the sickening, heartbreaking reality of the situation on the ground. A population with a huge arms arsenal versus a population sanctioned beyond comprehension.
Lets all carry on with the blame game eh??? All i pray for is a sustainable peace, true justice & human rights for the Palestinians on a par with those rights automatically given to israeli's.

23 May 2011 at 23:00  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

The Last Dodo 23 May 2011 20:06 wrote:

"I think you'll find the UN wouldn't stand by!"
The UN can't relieve its bowels without permission from the major powers. It is a creature of the nations. It has no army. It has no navy. It has no authority. It has no power. By itself it can nothing else but stand by.

"What are Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan about?"
Afghanistan was about interdicting a base of terrorist operations. The Iraq War was an act of risk mitigation intended to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iraq. These were both American interests, and largely opposed by 'civilized opinion' in Europe. Iran is going to benefit from Iraq's demise because the world (meaning the US) doesn't have the stomach for another fight. Iran will emerge as the next nuclear power.

"It's not in the interests of USA or Europe for Israel to fall."
A nation doesn't just have interests. A nation must be willing and able to act on those interests. The nations of Europe could not project power into Bosnia on their own. They couldn't fly combat missions over Libya without the assistance of the US. How are they going to intervene in Israel if they can't even get to Libya?

And none of this addresses the plain fact that the Israelis won't accept any such plan. They are not going to place their national survival in the hands of the US and Europe. Not now. Not tomorrow. Not ever. So it doesn't matter if it's not in the interest of the US and Europe to 'let Israel fall.' The Israelis won't allow themselves to be forced to depend upon that slender reed in the first place.

"Sorry, but name the Arab State with WMD?"
That's why I used the phrase 'Islamic bomb' and not 'Arab bomb.' I was specifically thinking of Iran when I wrote that sentence. But since you asked, you can thank GWB for the fact that there is not now an Islamic Bomb under the control of Sadaam Hussein. 'Civilized opinion' in Europe was quite willing to reconcile itself to that outcome. Perhaps Europe isn't so interested in Israeli survival after all.

carl

23 May 2011 at 23:04  
Blogger angelaimaan said...

spelling error - hear not here! (1st line)
I'm sorry but i do not buy the poor, poor Israel line. I have many jewish friends whom are also of the opinion that judaism is used as an excuse to enable occupation. Allowing people from all over the world- indeed actively encouraging migration to Israel in disputed territory is beyond wrong in a place where indigenous people are displaced refugees in their own land. SAD & SICKENING.

23 May 2011 at 23:07  
Blogger angelaimaan said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 May 2011 at 23:11  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

angelaimaan

Perhaps the Arabs should learn to stop starting wars. It's hard to start a war and then lose it. Things often go badly for people who start wars and then lose.

The conditions the Palestinians suffer are the direct consequences of their own actions. The Arabs have from day one sought to eradicate this 'Crusader state thrust like a dagger into the heart of Islam' and so the burden falls on the Arabs to prove they have repented. Since they are the aggressors, they must swallow their own pride, admit the humiliation of their defeat, and prove their commitment to peace by their sustained submission over time. This they have not done, and this they have no intention of doing. If the Israelis were to follow your advice at the present time, they might as well fill every Israeli home with deadly vipers. You say "No, the Arabs only want peace." Then let the Arabs prove it before you demand the Israelis open their shirt, and paint "Thrust dagger here!" on their chests.

carl

23 May 2011 at 23:39  
Blogger Ariadne said...

MarkG

Arabs come from Arabia and those who now call themselves "Palestinan" are just Arab.

Before Israel declared independence Arabs in the Mandate dissociated themselves from the Palestinians who were in fact Jews.

The Arabs who wish to acquire Israel's land have fantasised a few origins for themselves. Their names sometimes show their true origins. In Egypt, Iraq, etc.

Philistines were "invaders from the west". the meaning of Hebrew "plishtim".

"All traces of the Plishtim as a people or ethnic group disappear. Subsequently the cities were under the control of Persians, Yehudim (Hasmonean Kingdom), Greeks (Seleucid Empire), Romans, and subsequent empires."

http://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org/Scriptures/Tenakh/Div-HaYamin-Alef/Dvri-HaYmm-Alef-10.htm

23 May 2011 at 23:54  
Blogger Ariadne said...

angelaimaan

Shouting does not make your lies into truth.

Arabs after rejecting partition plans in 1937 and 1947 were the authors of their own misfortune.

It was very clear to everyone in the late 1940s that the Arab flight from the former Mandate for Palestine was the fault of Arabs.

By then the UN had been created and so many people claimed refugee status that the UN gave up on trying to identify scammers and declared a refugee to be anyone (Arab) who lived in the Mandate from 1946-1948. A very strange meaning for indigenousness - 2 years' residence!

Jews were also made refugees - in much larger numbers - by the Arab countries they had inhabited since before Islam was invented. No handouts for them. No dynastic refugee status for them.

The obvious (and fair) solution to the "Palestinian" "refugees" is for their homelands in Arabia to take them in.

24 May 2011 at 00:09  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I hope your grace watched "all overseen by machines of love and grace"

bit of a slow burn so far, but some very intresting topics , strangley overlooked by the socialists :)

24 May 2011 at 00:29  
Blogger Owl said...

angelaimaan,

What you maintain that you would like to see, would require a change of heart by the Arab nations.

The Arab nations seem to offer the Palastinians nothing.

How about some guarantees of non aggression from the Arab states.

What are the Arab states doing to curb ever growing militant Islamist groups?

How the hell do you expect Israel to open it's defenses under these circumstances.

I assume you are of an Arabic background to be so naive.

The ball is not in Israel's court in case you haven't noticed.

Obama is just making the whole situation worse which is not very surprising. He seems to think that he will alienate Israel to the rest of the world but he is only succeeding in alienating himself.

One wonders whose interests he is backing.

A Palstinian state would have to evolve from the Arab states, not Israel, to be in any way realistic.

The Arab states just don't seem to be interested in the Palastinians except to as an excuse to justify their own primitive behaviour.

Get real.

24 May 2011 at 00:36  
Anonymous len said...

A peaceful solution would be great for the Arab/Israeli conflict but is this feasible?.
This conflict goes far beyond the 'Palestinians' who are a 'creation' of the Arab World.

Driven by his 12th Imam pathology,Iran`s Ahmadinejad is obsessed with the goal of destroying the 'Zionist enemy.'

On October 26, 2005, Ahmadinejad appeared at a conference entitled “A World without Zionism.” Among other things he said:

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement… I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.
.............................
And it is with this prevailing attitude that Israel has to go into 'peace' talks with the Arab world.

24 May 2011 at 08:13  
Anonymous Voyager said...

What are the Arab states doing

There are no "States" in an Arab context, merely tribes and leading families grown powerful under Ottoman Rule. They are simply tribes with a flag imposing their will on their subjects and defending lines in the sand they want to believe are natural borders.

The Ottomans were a disaster in The Balkans and in Arabia decaying over centuries and leaving nation-states in Europe desperate for some sort of order after 1919.

To pretend these are real "states" is absurd and it is largely oilfields that make many of these "states" viable as the tribal chief buys off his rivals in old Arab tradition.

We should stop seeing the region through Western Eyes because there is a long history of incoherent and inchoate political structures.

24 May 2011 at 09:02  
Anonymous Broadwood said...

@ Graham Wood
"I believe you are correct in that many of the OT prophets, including Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, all have numerous references to Israel returning to their land. However, if you look carefully at each context you will discover that these refer to Israel's return after the Babylonian captivity of 70 years.
They have nothing to do with 1948 !"

"What are the "huge portions of Scripture you say need to be rejected by those who accept so called 'replacement theology'?
I have not abandoned a single verse!"

Not true! Zechariah dates from after the exile anyway, and even a cursory reading of Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc etc, explodes the notion that it was all neatly fulfilled by the return of the exiles from Bablyon. Take Ezekiel 37 - hasn't happened yet, so what is Ez 38&39 about?

Replacement theology is a vicious and supremacist doctrine that does indeed jettison huge chunks of scripture. We Gentiles are 'grafted in', and that by grace.

The concept that God has given up on the Jews is in the Koran, not the Bible!

24 May 2011 at 09:42  
Anonymous Graham Wood said...

Broadwood said:-
"Take Ezekiel 37 - hasn't happened yet, so what is Ez 38&39 about?"

Not so! If the prophecies of Ezekiel "Has'nt happened yet" then of course it would render Ezekiel's prophecies as meaningless gibberish to his hearers in captive Babylon! Ezekiel was writing to his own contemporaries, not over their heads to unknown people in the 20/21st centuries or beyond !

Ezekiel apart, I'm still intrigued by your claim that New Covenant believers "jettison huge chunks of Scripture" What or where are they?

Ultimately ALL Scripture finds it's fulfilment in the Person of Christ - from Genesis to Malachai - i.e.
"All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, AND IN THE PROPHETS, and in the Psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44)

24 May 2011 at 10:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Replacement theology is a vicious and supremacist doctrine that does indeed jettison huge chunks of scripture.

It is Cultish in its attempt to turn Five Gospels into a Religion with St Paul at its head

24 May 2011 at 10:35  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

Only a sophist politician, ignorant of the history, steeped in moral relativism and with an eye on re-election, could reduce the existential threat faced by Israel to a trivial game of Risk.

The threat to Israel is in part due to the international powers that enabled its formation (in 1948) in the first place and in part due to Israel’s aggressive expansionist policies ever since. And before you assert that the 6 Day War was plucky little Israel defending itself from invasion, take look at the history. Like many conflicts its origins were not clear cut and the result of confusion and misinformation.

Whatever the history Israel now exists but it’s viability as a State should not outweigh all the other issues. Returning to pre 67 borders is the least that we should expect and for that Israel’s right to exist should be acknowledged by its Arab neighbours.

24 May 2011 at 10:40  
Anonymous tb said...

The Celt was also in England back then. I have yet to see you advocate HIS return. Funny, that.

24 May 2011 at 11:53  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Voyager/Broadwood.

'And the "huge chunks of scripture" being jettisoned are? ?

24 May 2011 at 13:06  
Anonymous Broadwood said...

Voyager,

I agree, but in a misguided way - St Paul didn't believe that himself, as Romans 11 makes clear.

And GW - If you don't call all the Scripture chunks I've already quoted enough proof, although there's plenty more on the same theme, you obviously have little regard for your Bible at all!

24 May 2011 at 13:42  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Its a tricky one your Grace.

24 May 2011 at 15:35  
Anonymous tb said...

> Israel is an historic nation:

So is Mercia. Are you recommending it be re-created? At least it hasn't been entirely non-existent for 2,000 years, like Israel had.

24 May 2011 at 18:52  
Anonymous len said...

There have always been Jews in Israel. By the early 19th century — years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement — more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State.

24 May 2011 at 19:12  
Anonymous tb said...

Len. I suggest you read the Bible if you think that.

24 May 2011 at 22:12  
Anonymous len said...

tb. Israel.

24 May 2011 at 22:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older