Saturday, March 24, 2012

Rev’d Stephen Sizer and his ‘disgraceful’ anti-Semitism

From Anglican Friends of Israel:

Last weekend I debated a Christian critic of Israel. I challenged his assertion that the State of Israel ‘invites’ anti-semitism by its actions. Such thinking is very dangerous, I replied. It could provide an excuse for race hatred. He did not respond.

Our discussion sprang from a statement issued on 13 March 2012 by the much-respected Council for Christians and Jews in which they took one of Israel’s fiercest Anglican critics, Rev Stephen Sizer, to task publicly. CCJ’s Chairman, the Bishop of Manchester, called Sizer’s retaining of a link on his Facebook page to an article on an anti-semitic website for over two months, 'disgraceful' and conduct ‘unbecoming for a clergyman’.

The Middle East conflict arouses strong feelings on both sides: but whatever led a clergyman to overlook the hateful nature of 'The Ugly Truth' website having allegedly been warned twice about it? Is this an isolated incident, or just the tip of a larger iceberg?

Stephen Sizer is only one of a number of Evangelical Christians whose opposition to Israel and Zionism has arguably strayed beyond the limits of legitimate debate. Many follow the ‘Palestinian narrative’ of the ‘Naqba’ (catastrophe) of Israel’s foundation in 1948, and the Palestinian misery occasioned by Israeli oppression and injustice.

As a God of love and justice – not to mention the story of David and Goliath - are part of the Christian theological furniture, it isn’t surprising that this simple paradigm of weak vs strong and good vs evil strikes a chord with Christians. But it provides an inaccurate and perilous framework for understanding a complex conflict. It was developed by veteran terrorist Yassir Arafat - which ought to alert anyone not to take it at face value.

Christian anti-Zionists rely on two theological strands to bolster the Palestinian narrative, the first being Liberation Theology. They insist that standing against Israeli injustice and oppression becomes a Christian duty in response to The Lord’s Prayer “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

The trouble is, the Middle East today is not the Latin American of the 1960’s. Israel is not a dictatorship but a vibrant democracy and contrary to the official narrative, Palestinians are not helpless peasants stripped of all power over their lives. Of course Israel gets things wrong; but to present her actions – actually her existence – as the sole cause of Palestinian misery is absurd.

Christian anti-Zionists all but ignore the appalling security dilemmas Israel faces. Israel’s efforts to prevent or defend itself from terrorism are labelled ‘humiliation’ of Palestinians or a ‘disproportionate response’. When Palestinian children are killed or injured in clashes, Israel alone is blamed. Christian anti-Zionists rarely criticize Palestinian leaders for feeding their children a daily diet of hatred in schools and the media; nor do they hold them responsible for aiming rockets at Israeli children from behind their own human shields, or parading their dead and injured children for cameras in order to whip up hatred of the Jewish State.

The second strand in anti-Zionist thinking within the Church is Replacement Theology, which states that Jews were excised from God’s plan because they did not accept Jesus as Messiah, only to be replaced as God’s Chosen people by the Church. Replacement theology undergirded more than 1500 years of institutional Christian anti-semitism despite contempt for Jews being explicitly condemned by the Christian scriptures. Christian Anti-Zionists usually dismiss concerns about Replacement Theology, often with the canard that Israel’s supporters always claim that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

We find the logical extension of Replacement theology in the Qur’an where we read that Jews were disobedient to God and are now subject to judgement which will eventually be carried out by Allah’s faithful servants. Thankfully, the vast majority of Muslims do not interpret these Surahs as a current religious imperative. Unfortunately for Israel, their thuggish neighbours to the north (Hezbollah) and south (Hamas) do. The Hamas Charter looks forward to Israel’s destruction and the murder of Jews on the basis of Quranic teaching. It’s not such a large step from one to the other.

Christian anti-Zionists would refute Hamas’ Charter entirely. Equally, they are clear that modern Israel cannot be a fulfilment of scriptural promises since Israel’s behaviour just isn’t up to scratch. Speaking on Iranian Press TV, Rev Sizer even opined that if Israeli Jews do not repent and find reconciliation like we did in western Europe(!) then God might expel them from the Holy Land again.

The Palestinian narrative also requires that the history of Arab rejectionism and aggression lying at the heart of the conflict be expunged. You won’t often hear anti-Zionists admitting that millions of Jews have lived all over the Middle East continuously for over 3,000 years. Instead they join with Israel’s enemies, denouncing Zionism while promoting Palestinian nationalism. Instead they adopt the language of delegitimisation. Israel is a western colonial enterprise formed on stolen land; Ashkenazi Jews are foreign interlopers, displacing the ‘indigenous Palestinians’ depriving them of land and resources. And so on.

Some anti-Zionists even extend understanding, though not approval, to anti-Semitism. The man I debated on Twitter was only echoing Ben White, author of ‘Israeli Apartheid: a Beginner’s Guide’ who wrote that whilst not anti-Semitic himself he could understand why people are. Protests that such reasoning excuses racism and could incite hatred, violence even, against Jews in Israel and beyond, seem to fall on deaf ears.

And so we come to Toulouse. Muhammed Merar had already killed 3 soldiers when he sought out Jewish children at their school, and murdered three of them. He explained to a horrified world that he was taking revenge on behalf of Palestinian children. Hateful ideas became flesh as Merar translated a distorted narrative into action.

Christians must have the courage to renounce a narrative of the Middle East conflict that demonises one party whilst absolving the other from all responsibility; they must stop using theology to underpin it, and frame their concerns within a more constructive paradigm. Otherwise there will be more outrages enacted by fanatics who hear the rationale for their visceral hate softly reflected in the media, at conferences and in Churches. For in this conflict above all, careless talk can cost lives.

89 Comments:

Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. They are trying to get at Sizer with race hatred. Let the man speak, and his arguments defeated by superior reasoning. Debate must not be stifled...

24 March 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger Huldah said...

OIG

If the passion of protagonists in a debate leads them to stray - however inadvertently - towards the language of racism, shouldn't that be challenged? And isn't this (rather than Rev Sizer's views) what CCJ have done?

CCJ's statement is clear: Rev Sizer (and anyone else for that matter) has the right to hold their views. (I'd add that they have the right to have them robustly challenged as well.)

But how arguments are framed and pursued is important too. CCJ is correct, I think, to challenge Rev Sizer on this.

24 March 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger Vic Van Den Bergh said...

Having had the privilege of knowing (Dr) Sizer for some time I'd hardly rate him as an anti-Semite.

Once again the first defence of the wek-minded (and often morally wrong) is to play the racist, anti-Semite, homophobe or similar card.

I may not always agree with everything anyone says but I have to say that I find the attack on Stephen having more to do with a reasoned stand against the actions of Israel than religious prejudice.

Once again the nation state of Israel (an ersatz secular state rather than a religious entity) proves itself to be despicable in its actions and intent!

V

24 March 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger Amused said...

OIG:

First of all, criticizing someone, even strongly, isn't "stifling" debate. The right to debate doesn't entail a right to have one's bigoted, uninformed and hateful opinions validated. (And incidentally, I've noticed that people who like to cry "antisemitism card" are also very fond of invoking the "free speech card" any time they are criticized.)

Second, not everything can be disputed in what you call a reasoned and robust debate. Some things are simply a matter of belief and values. If I claim, right now, that you like to rape little boys, I don't think it's an allegation that you can "defeat" with a logical argument -- nor do I think you would feel morally obligated to dignify it with a formal discussion. Similarly, claiming that Jews, qua Jews, are subject to a special, Jew-specific rule that allows any Jew, anywhere, to be harassed, even killed, unless every Jew in the world and the government of Israel meet a particular (often Israel-specific) standard of morality, niceness, deference, what have you -- that's a value, and it can't be defeated with "robust debate". Antisemites aren't interested in debate, because (and if you press them on this, they will admit it) there is simply no amount of evidence or reasoning that would ever be sufficient to convince them that they are wrong. They believe what they believe because they want to believe it. And that's all there is to it.

24 March 2012 at 12:35  
Blogger Huldah said...

Vic

'Once again the nation state of Israel (an ersatz secular state rather than a religious entity) proves itself to be despicable in its actions and intent!'

Are you suggesting that the State of Israel is behind CCJ's criticism of Rev Sizer?

24 March 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The Church did replace the nation of Israel. That's why the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. That's when Old Testament Judaism ceased to exist. It can never be re-established. The modern state of Israel is not a re-establishment of Solomon's Kingdom.

God's Old Mosaic Covenant with the nation of Israel is gone. It was a conditional Covenant that the Israelites failed to keep, and they suffered the penalties attached. God's Unconditional Covenant with Abraham is God's promise of salvation in Jesus Christ. That Covenant was made manifest in Israel and carried forward by the Church.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, but we - the capital-C Church - are all one in Christ Jesus. The Church and Israel are now one. Why is this critically important? Because Jewish people don't get special dispensation from God on account of their lineage. They must be evangelized like everyone else.

carl

24 March 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger Huldah said...

Vic

Would Israel be better off as a 'religious entity'?

And are you sure Rev Sizer would approve of your description of Israel as an 'Ersatz' State?

24 March 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Huldah. It all comes down to what exactly is ‘race hatred’. Calling for the absolute destruction of a race and it’s civilisation, Islam’s angle on the Jews, is without question a case. Criticising the Jews in their attitudes is not. It is most certainly inconvenient for one side when these views are aired, but that’s all it is. For example, the Inspector’s own call into an investigation as to why certain black people are dangerously anti social and highly violent has been tagged racist, and he has been urged to let the matter drop...

We cannot afford to have sacred cows in the world of free debate...

24 March 2012 at 12:57  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

OIG is right. This is simply an attempt to intimidate criticism.

Not that I think Sizer is right -- on the contrary, Israel is the only democracy in the region, and the things for which it is mendaciously criticised are things that its circumstances force upon it.

But I am tired of the identity politics. I didn't vote that (e.g.) Blacks/Jews/Gays/Moslems/etc couldn't be spoken of, other than in terms of warmest approval. Every honest man must oppose attempts to stifle debate by these dirty little tactics. It's time for all of us to shout some "forbidden" word, in an "I am Spartacus" way, and regain the right to say what we like.

If Sizer is wrong, as I believe, let his arguments be demolished. Demonising the man as a Jews, whoops a Nazi (my mistake) ... that's the path of the SA.

24 March 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Amused. The Inspector has clarified his position at 12:57. Do come back if you remain critical.

As for the raping of little boys, easily defeated there. Your proof, your substance, your justification to make the accusation ?

24 March 2012 at 13:07  
Blogger Huldah said...

OIG

Interesting example, and I can see where you are coming from. Sometimes provocative arguments must be put forward. However, I bet you're quite careful who you link to in supporting your ideas with sources from the internet.

24 March 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

So, Cranmer, just clarify for me: is it the Palestinians who are responsible for what Muhammed Merar did (not a Palestinian, by the way, and as far as is known, has never been near Palestine) because he claimed to be acting in their name, or is it Christians who are critical of Israel who are responsible?

And on a point of further clarification, your post appears to be putting Israel on the level of any other organic state, ie, implying that it was sitting there, minding its own beeswax until millions of mad Arabs decided to attack it for no reason other than blind race hate. Now, I know you can't possibly mean that, because such an outrageous notion would have no place in the mind of a man who worries sooooo much about anti-Semitism taking hold of those critical of your poster boy. Therefore, I'd be interested to know how you justify invasion, theft, murder, brutalization and, on occasion, massacre perpetrated on an innocent people while fretting over such things as 'hate-speech'.

24 March 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Huldah. The Inspector is a stand-alone figure. No networking involved. He inspects, investigates and brings to attention. His ideas are very much his own...

24 March 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I swear, the critics of Israel will not be satisfied that Israel has done everything necessary for peace until it has been dismembered and butchered by the surrounding Arab states. At which time they will no doubt rub their hands together furtively, survey the death and devastation, and say "Oh, my! Oh, my! This is terrible. Such bloodshed. Who could have seen this coming?"

Except for the likes of Corrigan, of course. They will observe the men sawed in half, the women raped to death, the children buried alive, the infants impaled on pitch forks, the Palestinian hands dipped in Jewish blood and lifted up in celebration. They will nod approvingly and say "This is the just end of a people who commit invasion, theft, murder, brutalization and, on occasion, massacre on an innocent people. They didn't belong here anyways. They brought it on themselves."

carl

24 March 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I was reading an article recently on this subject and the question asked was, 'Are Jews a genetic grouping, a religious group or a nationalistic group?'
Traditionally they were all three prior to the crucifixion of Christ but their meanderings across the Globe have changed the focus of their nature. I suspect that despite the purges against them, they have considered themselves as residents of whichever country they find themselves in. They did not consider themselves as displaced Judeans.
It was the Holocaust that caused westerners conscience to consider the state of Israel as a permanent home for the Jews. It only takes a brief look at history to realise that the Arabs of that pert of the Middle East have no more claim to the region than anyone else.
So why do people get so het up about relationship of Israel and the people who call themselves Palestinians. The actions of the Israelis in defending themselves have nothing to do with their Jewishness. They are simply nationalists defending there homeland. The Palestine’s however are both racist against Jews and are an undeveloped group of jealous individuals who will not accept the truth about their situation and propagate hatred against their neighbours. This observation has nothing to do with their race; it is based upon observations and their actions.
Name and address supplied!!!!!
Inspector: I liked your questioning the actions of specific racial groups. I have often wondered why the police have been told to cut down on random stop and search. If the figures were known, most of the youth crime in particular would be found to have been done by immigrants and children of immigrants. It is no point turning a blind eye to the facts just in case it comes over racist. A fact is a fact and should be treated as such.

24 March 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger Huldah said...

OIG

'The Inspector is a stand-alone figure. No networking involved. He inspects, investigates and brings to attention. His ideas are very much his own...'

I'm sure they are. However when doing certain work on the internet - post which contain references to others, for example, it's helpful to support one's statements with evidence, and links are the way to do that.

But you knew that anyhow and were pulling my leg, weren't you ...

24 March 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger non mouse said...

This is what I call 'hoisting 'em,' Your Grace: Christians must have the courage to renounce a narrative of the Middle East conflict that demonises one party whilst absolving the other from all responsibility; they must stop using theology to underpin it, and frame their concerns within a more constructive paradigm. As one sometimes labelled
'structuralist' I thoroughly appreciate your brilliant incorporation of present-day theoretical jargon!

Here also: Replacement theology undergirded more than 1500 years of institutional Christian anti-semitism despite contempt for Jews being explicitly condemned by the Christian scriptures. Indeed, you call to mind the excellent example of Chaucer's anti-semitic Prioress's Tale and its teller: poor muddled girl that she is... I believe the Father of [Modern] English Poetry reminds us precisely that Christ was a Jew; so was His mother.

Beats me, why these anti-semites presume to know that God condemned His Chosen People to wholesale eviction from the Promised Land: literally or metaphorically. Is there not a sense in which the Holy Family represents a strand long woven into Hebrew culture? Do they not epitomise gentle, loving intellect: the genius that went into the building, preservation and development of their relationship with God... and which informed the construction of our own? Wouldn't that be the same genius that educated the generations who wrote and preserved the Biblical record of the Word?

The 'West' could not have re-patriated the Jews to their Holy Land had God not permitted. So perhaps we should begin to consider His purpose in placing them at the front line in defence of every grain of dust that we have and are (again, physically and metaphorically).

We Christians would do well to follow your advice. We could start by remembering that our backbones and brains are structurally connected.

24 March 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. If the figures were known, most of the youth crime in particular would be found to have been done by immigrants and children of immigrants

It is of course the truth that cannot be known. That awful word multiculturalism must in no way be criticised. Take black people. For their presence in England, they are SEVEN times more represented in the criminal justice system than their numbers would warrant. Now, if that was taken on board, areas with concentrations of black people need seven times the resources for policing. And the cost of this NOT to fall on the local authority, but to central government. It was central government who brought them in; they carry the cost of their folly.

In Birmingham, the sound of gunshots are heard EVERY NIGHT somewhere there. It’s no longer news, not if it happens that regularly. And of course, the BBC helps out by not mentioning it, unless some major shooting takes place. Nobody is interested or at least seems to give a damn. Yet they should be. Blacks are loathed by Asians there. Asians run a business, blacks rob it. Central Birmingham is now a white minority place. White flight is taking place. They know how it’s going to develop...

24 March 2012 at 17:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Huldah. As much as it is possible to have an original thought, be sure the Inspector strives in that direction. Obviously, he’s influenced by the thoughts of others, but in an unconscious way. Also, we are not bound by the protocols of academia here. We need not justify our submissions with references to the great and the good.

So, do feel free to knock holes in this man’s efforts. He only wants the truth, and freely accepts any contribution or criticism he’ll encounter on the way...

24 March 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"They will observe the men sawed in half, the women raped to death, the children buried alive, the infants impaled on pitch forks, the Palestinian hands dipped in Jewish blood and lifted up in celebration"

Because, of course, Arabs being merely beasts, this is what they do for fun, right? And apparantly I'M the racialist?

And no, the Israelis DON'T belong there, they belong in the sanctimonious, hypocritical country of which the majority of them hold citizenship, the country which bent itself double to deny immigration to holocaust survivors, while at the same time demanding that Palestinians give up their country to accomodate Zionism.

On the Israeli problem, the US absolutely stinks from sea to shining sea. I have previously told you that your country makes me physically sick with its hypocricy, and your Arab bashing does nothing to redeem that situation. Just keep telling yourself that you're a "good person", Carl. You might even convince yourself of it.

24 March 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan

Well, what do think is going to happen if the Arabs ever find the hated Jews in Israel at their mercy? Do you think it will be an orderly transition of power? Do you think all those hated Jews will be seamlessly woven into a benign Arab state? The Israelis sure as hell don't think so. They play for much higher stakes. They win or they die. It's as simple as that. If ever they find themselves at the mercy of the surrounding Arab nations, then 300 years of Islamic anger is going to be vented on them. It will be a bloodbath of terror. The only thing that could stop it would be an intervention by the United States. No one else will lift a finger. No one else could lift a finger even if they wanted.

You think a different outcome should have happened in 1947. Well, tough. Your nation didn't get a voice in the matter. Your nation sat out the war against Hitler. Your nation wasn't part of the UN. Your opinion on what the nations "should have done" is irrelevant. The nations who carried the burden earned the right to make those decisions. I am really not well disposed to listen to carping about what the US "should have done" from someone whose own nation reclined at ease from 1939 to 1945. You were quite content to co-exist with Hitler, and now you presume to declare what "should have been done" in the aftermath of a war you refused to fight?

In any case, even if your assertion that the Jews "don't belong there" was true (which it isn't), your assertion is moot. They are there. They arrived there by legal authority. The nation was established by legal authority. Many have been born there. The Israelis aren't leaving. They are surrounded by people who want to kill them, and say so out loud over and over and over again. (The Jews didn't listen once to someone who said over and over again the he would kill Jews. That mistake won't be repeated again.) So they remain ever vigilant against surrounding nations who wish to drive them from the land. What else would you have them do? Besides die, I mean. I get that part. Do you have any useful suggestions?

By the way, I didn't make up that image of the Palestinian holding up in celebration a hand dipped in Jewish blood. I saw it. On the CNN website. It happened some ten years ago. The young man had such a look of delight on his face. The bodies of the dead Jewish family were still fresh, and he was reveling in the kill. I will never forget that image. I suspect the Israelis will never forget it either. That's why they remain ever vigilant.

carl

24 March 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. whose own nation reclined at ease from 1939 to 1945

The Irish called it ‘the emergency’. What stopped them starving completely was the agrarian nature of the country. I have a picture of my father from the time. 5 foot 10 inches, but no bulk at all.

He caught TB then, over a third of them did. Insufficient diet to keep it at bay. 40 000 Southern Irishmen answered the call and enrolled in the British Army. That’s 4 army divisions in the old money, not to mention the few thousands in the merchant marine...

Oh, and don’t mention it, old chap...

24 March 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

"For his [Sizer] assertion that the State of Israel ‘invites’ anti-semitism by its actions"

Sets the topic clearly enough I'd say - but hold hard there a minute - what's this from OiG?

'Take black people. For their presence in England, they are SEVEN times more represented in the criminal justice system than their numbers would warrant'...

Yet not a shred of evidence offered to support this lazy statement which for all I know may well be true - he should just back it up with a bit of evidence or retract. Does he mean black as in black Nubian; black as in Carribbean; Carribbean mixed race, black/indian, black/european, Tamil, Australian Aboriginal, Egyptian - just what does he mean by 'black'? Are all these included in his appraisal of the non white criminal fraternity in the UK?

How's this for feigned sensitivity to injustice:-

...the Inspector’s own call into an investigation as to why certain black people are dangerously anti social and highly violent has been tagged racist, and he has been urged to let the matter drop...

Aw Diddums!

Funny you should say that OiG - now I see your innate Catholic sense of fair play and reasonability comes to the fore by suggesting it's now only 'certain black people' you wish to identify, which suggests a degree of research or reference? Even on a thread about anti-Semitism, you manage to show what you would otherwise try to hide - namely your deep rooted and ignorant racism, based simply on skin colour - thankfully, how very unlike you are to most Christians I know.

Would you be backing Sizer if he was what you incisively identify a 'black man'- Maybe you would, I suppose it's a question of who do you hate more - after all, it's about those murderous Jews isn't it (or is it the Israelis? don't they have black Jews too? - whatever - no matter) causing trouble as ever.

But no - he is a straight (as far as I know)white, Christian, anti-Israel and gets your support without you citing anything to support or condemn his views, as clearly outlined as they are by HG's OP.

Called for an investigation you say? Talk about backpedaling - you did no such thing before you made the statement below - now you would like an investigation - and then what?

I accused you of being racist from the crudity of your unqualified assessment and condemnation of the people of an entire continent and beyond. You don't recognise anything other than a person's skin colour before you condemn them all for being either criminals or clowns. As you said:-

Office of Inspector General said...
Kony is most likely just a typical violent African. Extremely thick, immoral and probably lazy thrown in too. It’s called the African heritage, don’t you know...

9 March 2012 17:40


It's called racism don't you know...

24 March 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That’s it Dreadnaught, let it all come out, son.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7069791.stm

”The number of black people in prison as a proportion of the total population was 7.3 in 1,000. That compares to 1.3 per 1,000 for white people and 1.7 per 1,000 for Asian people.”

Why, the Inspector doesn’t know for sure, no one does, but he has a damn good idea. And yes, if we knew WHY we could do something, even if it’s just packing their areas with extra police. We might even be able to dis-arm a few of them.

Kony is a disgrace to humanity. Africa is full of Konys. Many of them end up running those wretched countries there, or get killed in the process by another Kony. So yes, it is the luckless peoples heritage. And something else, Africans are the biggest racists of the lot. You’d find that out if you were out walking in the savannah and come up against Kalashnikov carrying members of another tribe.

So, spare the Inspector your indignation you uninformed fool and bone up on what you condemn before going off the deep end...

24 March 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent post, non mouse @ 17.12

24 March 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 March 2012 at 21:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

I suspect that it would have been called rather more than an "emergency" if Hitler had won. Are you saying that Ireland was too destitute to fight, or that the 40,000 volunteers who fought with (hated) England somehow excuse Ireland's decision to stay neutral? Is it not true that Ireland stayed neutral because it did not want to fight as an ally as England? Is it not true that Ireland stayed neutral as an expression of its own sovereignty from Great Britain?

carl

24 March 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. A young country, almost bankrupt as the industrial North was not included in the settlement. And on top of that, the victorious IRA had split into two and fought a nasty civil war, resulting in the deaths of Michael Collins and Erskine Childers amongst others, and much material damage. Westminster waited during the 1920s for the south to admit it was not a valid proposition and to ask for re-admittance into the Union. Then came the great worldwide depression. It could barely feed itself, and it’s young were emigrating to England to find work. If it wasn’t for Young Ireland sending money home, the economy would have collapsed.

And you ask why the Free State didn’t jump into the war !

24 March 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl asked ...
Is it not true that Ireland stayed neutral as an expression of its own sovereignty from Great Britain?

In a word - NO.

Now you presume to be an expert on Irish history. Are you aware of the internal situation of Ireland in 1939? Having just rcovered from a civil war the nation was still divided. There were strong fascist forces in support of Hitlet. Opposed to these were republican forces. Both had fought in the Spanish Civil War.

de Valera's policy:
"The desire of the Irish people and the desire of the Irish Government is to keep our nation out of war. The aim of Government policy is to maintain and to preserve our neutrality in the event of war. The best way and the only way to secure our aim is to put ourselves in the best position possible to defend ourselves so that no one can hope to attack us or violate our territory with impunity. We know, of course, that should attack come from a power other than Great Britain, Great Britain in her own interest must help us to repel it."

There was also the small matter of the partition of Ireland.

At a series of meetings in June 1940, Malcolm MacDonald brought a proposal to end the partition of Ireland and offered a solemn undertaking to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and immediately join the war against Germany and Italy. However, unity would have to be agreed by the "representatives of the government of Éire and the government of Northern Ireland", each of which distrusted the other intensely. De Valera therefore rejected the amended proposals, worried that there was "no guarantee that in the end we would have a united Ireland" and that it "would commit us definitely to an immediate abandonment of our neutrality". De Valera had campaigned against partition and the 1937 Constitution drafted by him had an irredentist clause describing the State as the "whole island of Ireland".

So, it's somewhat more complicated picture than you think. As as you repeatedly state, nations go to war out of self interest. It was not in Ireland's interest to go to war. It would have ripped the country apart.



Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, Joe Walshe, stated in 1941:

" ... small nations like Ireland do not and cannot assume a role as defenders of just causes except [their] own ...Existence of our own people comes before all other considerations ... no government has the right to court certain destruction for its people; they have to take the only chance of survival and stay out."

24 March 2012 at 22:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A little story about a merchant ship sunk by a U boat off the west of Ireland. Some of the cargo was washed ashore, bacon. The authorities distributed it to the locality. Of course, having been in the sea, it was extremely salty, but it sold at half price. All you had to do was to ask “Have you any of that torpedo bacon there”

24 March 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Carl Jacobs,

If MY nation stayed out of the Second World War, YOURS only entered because it was bombed in by the Japanese, and then had war declared on it the next day by Hitler - otherwise, you would have sat on your overstuffed backsides just the way you had since 1939, so don't make me vomit all over again with more of your sanctimonious claptrap. We were just better at following American policy than Americans were.

As for your 'facts on the ground' argument, that's a really dangerous road to go down, since 'facts on the ground' can be arranged by anybody - if the Arabs manage to arrange new 'facts on the ground' will you be cool with that, or are we going to be subjected to more of your garbage nation's garbage moralizing? It's different when people with brown skin do it, isn't it?

24 March 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 23.17, are you suggesting that Obama's moralising is different because he has brown skin, or have I got this wrong?

24 March 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

No, I'm suggesting that behind America's support for Israel is the unspoken, visceral belief that it's ok to invade somebody's country and dispossess the population if that population has brown or black skin, since people of colour don't feel pain, humiliation or dishonour as white people do.

24 March 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Racism brings out the worst in people whichever way their sympathies lie.
My concern earlier about who was committing the major proportion of crime was not a criticism as such as any particular race but a serious question that needs to be asked. The authorities however are afraid to release such figures because they know it would implicate particular groups and that would provoke an attack of racism.
We have many different nationalities in our church and everyone gets on extremely well as if there was no difference, which in Christ, there is not. My Daughter is going out with a guy whose parents immigrated into the UK from Jamaica. He’s black of course and I am British white but I have no problem. It is when other nationals or religious groups are seen as a threat to their way of life we get concerned.
Society needs to be able to see others as people and not as an enemy and a threat, but Governments must realise that adjustment and acceptance of these groups by the general public takes time.

24 March 2012 at 23:47  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 23.45, didn't the US fight a Civil War to prove you completely wrong? Weren't 300,000 dead enough to make the point for you to understand?

25 March 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. Agreed. We should ALL be subject to scrutiny with a view for improvement, Catholics included. There must be no special classes in this life, no ‘sick note’ from the PC people to exempt them. The truth must out. it’s when it’s suppressed does the suspicion begin.

Politicians hide the truth, and pay the price of mistrust by the public as a result...

25 March 2012 at 00:13  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The US fought a civil war for a batch of reasons, and slavery was the last of them. Yes, since then it has been played up as the moral engine of that conflict, but the drive to the American Civil War was eerily similar to what is going on in the European Union at the moment (minus the slavery, obviously).

When the US was formed after the Revolutionary War, it was only loosly united under its articles of confederation; the thirteen colonies were thought of at that stage as being separate countries. The US constitution only came along some twenty or so years after that, and it was deliberate and quite wilful policy for the designers of that document to keep vague whether the individual states remained sovereign entities - kind of like the federalists in Brussels today.

Slavery may have been the spark for the conflict, and the particular piece of sanctimony the north wrapped itself in to give it the higher moral ground, but the issue was about wheather or not America was one nation. If it were otherwise, there would have been no Jim Crow laws and Rosa Parks would not have been thrown off the bus a hundred years after the war ended.

25 March 2012 at 00:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

And you ask why the Free State didn’t jump into the war!

I certainly do. Irish ports and airfields would have been invaluable in the fight against the U-Boats, and the Battle of the Atlantic was the most critical battle of the war. If England had fallen (and England survived June 1940 only by virtue of Winston Churchill's courage and willpower) then there would have been no Ireland. To leave England to fight that war by herself was incredibly cynical, and incredibly short-sighted.

And what then should I make of this story?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16287211

Should I infer from this that there was considerable sympathy in Ireland for Hitler's cause? Should I infer from this story that the enemy of Ireland's enemy was Ireland's friend?

In 1944, my father was in France dodging German mortar shells and watching German machine gun bullets rip through the cloth of his pants. He was nearly killed by the detonation of an artillery shell during an attack by an SS Panzer division. The British were entering the fifth year of German bombardment of their cities. The Russians were just beginning to drive the Germans out of Russia. The Allies were slugging north in Italy. The Japanese Island campaign was still facing its bloodiest battles. The Chinese were being butchered by the Japanese. It would go on for another year.

Against this you set the economic suffering of a nation that was asked to fight, but refused to fight. You might consider that a neutral nation is never going to be a priority for supplies and material when nations are fighting for their survival. You might consider that a nation dependent upon the shipping of other countries won't have much claim on that shipping in the midst of a U-Boat war that Churchill called the greatest threat Britain faced in the war. Whatever happened in Ireland doesn't seem overly significant compared to the 62,000 British civilians who died from German bombs. Or the 275,000 civilians who died in Holland. Or the 6,000,000 civilians who died in Poland.

Spin how you like. There was no excuse for neutrality in that war.

carl

25 March 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl said ...
Spin how you like. There was no excuse for neutrality in that war.

Following up his earlier assertion:

Is it not true that Ireland stayed neutral as an expression of its own sovereignty from Great Britain?

You are wrong on both counts as I outlined earlier.

No need for an "excuse". Your the first to claim nations go to war in their own interests and not just causes. The Irish Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, Joe Walshe, said in 1941:

" ... small nations like Ireland do not and cannot assume a role as defenders of just causes except [their] own ...Existence of our own people comes before all other considerations ... no government has the right to court certain destruction for its people; they have to take the only chance of survival and stay out."

Can you argue against this position?

Are you aware of the internal situation of Ireland in 1939? Having just rcovered from a civil war the nation was still sorely divided and weak economically. There was strong fascist support in Ireland as well as fierce opposition to it. Both groups had fought in the Spanish Civil War.

De Valera's had a clear policy:

"The desire of the Irish people and the desire of the Irish Government is to keep our nation out of war. The aim of Government policy is to maintain and to preserve our neutrality in the event of war. The best way and the only way to secure our aim is to put ourselves in the best position possible to defend ourselves so that no one can hope to attack us or violate our territory with impunity. We know, of course, that should attack come from a power other than Great Britain, Great Britain in her own interest must help us to repel it."

Given the circumstances externally and internally, it seems to me a wise course to follow.

England even tried to bribe Ireland with false promises - just as they had the Arabs during WWI. At a series of meetings in June 1940, proposals to end the partition of Ireland and offers of a solemn undertaking were made to accept "the principle of a United Ireland" if Ireland would abandon its neutrality and join the war. However, and here's the rub, unity would have to be agreed by the "representatives of the government of Éire and the government of Northern Ireland", each of which distrusted the other intensely. De Valera therefore rejected the amended proposals, as there was "no guarantee that in the end we would have a united Ireland" and that it "would commit us definitely to an immediate abandonment of our neutrality".

So, it's more complicated than you like to think.

25 March 2012 at 00:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan

If MY nation stayed out of the Second World War [etc,etc]...

Of course, there are a couple of important points to consider:

1. Ireland is a part of Europe. The US isn't. The American population was not interested in fighting yet another war in Europe. The threat to Ireland on the other hand was immediate.

2. FDR had turned the US into a de facto ally of Britain, and was doing everything he could to keep Britain alive. FDR knew the US was going to end up in the war.

3. The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't a random act. It was the end-point of a long reaction produced by the collapse of the Allied nations to Hitler. That collapse of European power in the Pacific made inevitable a conflict between Japan and the US.

4. The US eventually did fight. 300,000 Americans soldiers died in that war. Which is 300,000 more than the total number of soldiers who died fighting in the war under an Irish flag.

carl

25 March 2012 at 02:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan

As for your 'facts on the ground' argument

It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact. There are 6,000,000 Jews in Israel. Over 70% were born in Israel. You have asserted that they do not belong there. It's nice that you have an opinion on the matter but your opinion is irrelevant. They aren't going to leave and no one is going to make them leave. So what do you propose should be done? Or is random death from terror the price the Israelis must pay for existing in their own state?

I'm suggesting that behind America's support for Israel is the unspoken, visceral belief that it's ok to invade somebody's country and dispossess the population if that population has brown or black skin, since people of colour don't feel pain, humiliation or dishonour as white people do.

In your fantasy world, immigration becomes invasion, and invasion becomes self-defense. The Israelis didn't 'invade' anything. They immigrated, moved onto uninhabitable land in Palestine, developed it, and made it habitable. They were given a state by the legal authority over the land, and were attacked the day after they declared Independence. I suspect that the only problem for you is that the Israelis won. Far better if the Jews had been slaughtered in 1948.

carl

25 March 2012 at 02:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

There was strong fascist support in Ireland...

There we go. We have finally come to the real issue. What percentage of the Irish population actually hoped for German victory? How much did animosity towards Britain drive support for Germany? This is why I posted the story about the treatment of the war veterans in Ireland.

Can you argue against this position?

I guess it depends on how much they feared a German victory, doesn't it? If Britain had fallen, Ireland would have been quickly absorbed into Hitler's new world order. Was that outcome contrary to Irish interests in 1940? That as they say is the question.

carl

25 March 2012 at 02:31  
Blogger Vic Van Den Bergh said...

No Huldah, of course I'm not saying that the nation state of israel is behind the CCJ 's comments! What I am saying is that the behaviour of this (predominantly) secular nation engenders and arouses comments such as Dr Sizer has made and that they are a response to what this nation does.

I would hope to see Micah 6: 6-8 demonstrated in the dealings of israel (humility, mercy and justice) but see occupation, antagonism, lack of proportionality and more besides (and before accused of bias - I see little to comment the other side either).

Pax

25 March 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

The Irish (Catholic) Church would have welcomed a Nazi victory.
After all Adolf was a catholic, and there's pleanty of evidence (apart from the concordat) to show that the RC would crawl up the arse of ANY available fascist dictator - Salazar, Franco .....

As for Anti-Semitism, surely there is a very respectable (ahem) tradition of this in Protestantism, going right back to Martin Luther ...
Try looking up: "Martin Luther jews & their Lies"
after all ....


Oops.

25 March 2012 at 08:01  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

@Carl Jacobs:

"Of course, there are a couple of important points to consider...etc;"


None of which explain why it was alright for America to stay out until it was bombed in, or why it was wrong for Ireland to stay out when it wasn't bombed in - except, of course, that it's different when America does it. Yet another piece of disgusting American hypocricy. Bottom line, you looked after your own interests and ONLY your own interests, and you fought ONLY when you were left without any possible way out. God Almighty, you didn't even declare war on Germany AFTER Pearl Harbour; Hitler had to declare war on YOU. You people were happy to keep it limited to the Japanese, yet you have the gall to wag your moralizing finger at US? What pharisees you are.

And then, of course, we have the 'land without a people for a people without a land' argument. More classic, lying Zionist BS. As far back as 1891, the Jewish author and cultural Zionist Asher Ginsberg wrote, "we are used to believing that Eretz Israel is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed, and that anyone who wishes to purchase land there may come and purchase as much as he desires. But in truth, this is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find land that is not sowed. Only sand dunes and stoney mountains that are not fit to grow anything but fruit trees - and this only after hard labour and great expense of clearing and reclamation - only these are not cultivated".

Of course, that didn't suit Zionism's depiction of itself as victim, so we have the lying garbage that Zionists came to an empty land and were attacked there by lazy Arabs after they made it bloom. Forget what Ginsberg wrote or the fact that the Jaffa fruit groves were planted, cultivated, harvested, exported and marketed abroad by Arabs long before the Zionists arrived - we'll just take them by force and re-write history to make it seem like we planted them. If we present ourselves as victims, the stupid Americans will support us. After all, we're white-skinned while the Arabs are brown, so the Americans will believe us instead of them.

25 March 2012 at 09:02  
Blogger Huldah said...

Vic wrote

"What I am saying is that the behaviour of this (predominantly) secular nation engenders and arouses comments such as Dr Sizer has made and that they are a response to what this nation does."

Vic,

Israel's secular nature is irrelevant except inasmuch as its constitution enshrines freedom of faith and worship. And largely upholds it although, in common with many other nations, there are unpleasant instances of citizens of one faith group making life difficult for another.

Noone questions the right of anyone to comment on an international situation. However the article argues that when discourse on Israel has reached the point where some anti-Zionists - including some Christians - can 'understand' why some people are anti-semitic, then something has gone badly wrong.

Put it this way: China invaded and has occupied Tibet for 60(?) years suppressing its culture, exiling its leaders and robbing its people of the right to self determination which they enjoyed previously. From time to time there is discussion in the media about what China has done, but noone would think of saying that China's actions 'invited' hatred of Chinese people generally.

Yet anti-Zionists do use this reasoning in respect of Israel and wider antisemitism, as the examples given above suggest, and I feel this is dangerous reasoning.

Racism is an individual choice. Noone is forced into it and noone should suggest that anyone is.

25 March 2012 at 09:10  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

China is not being supported by millions of dollars a day in American stipends, although one might argue that the western commercial engagement there amounts to the same thing. The point is that nobody upholds China as a regional model, as they do Israel.

25 March 2012 at 09:23  
Blogger IanCad said...

With Carl Jacobs posting so much sense on matters Spiritual and historic I can only comment on the issue of semantics.
The term "Replacement Theology" has acquired a perjorative dimension tending to stifle rational debate with those who hold that the Nation of Israel has no further role in God's plan of redemption.
Much as in academia the term "Global Warming Denier" automatically consigns the holder of such a view to neanderthal status; RT does the same in religious matters by implying that those who support the hypothesis are "Anti-Semites" or "Nascent Nazis."
The eschatological meanderings of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye (author of the Left Behind" books) have had a toxic effect not only on american Christians but also on their foreign policy. A huge number of conservative evangelicals swallow the dispensationalist fallacy that includes an unbiblical "Rapture" and the centrality of the Nation of Israel to end time events.
It should be noted that this teaching was initially espoused by, of all people, the "Plymouth Bretheren."

25 March 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Of course Rev Stephen Sizer should be allowed to state his case but not if his views are a clear incitement to violence. By the sound of things his rhetoric has become mighty close to being so.

I personally suspect Jesuit influence is again at play, and that a bit of simple investigative work as to where Rev stephen Sizer gained his indoctrination from would soon enough show this to be the case.

Please understand that Jesuit influence is in no way confined to confirmed Roman Catholics, this divisively murderous method of obtaining Gods House on Earth can take on a wide variety of disguises often including Muslim, Jewish, Anglican, Protestant and Atheist ones, indeed any sexual, religious, corporate or political identity whatsoever.

ALL socialist theology is of Jesuit origins, however this kind of handed down doctrinal psychopathy is clearly of a more direct source. Likely from a Jesuit University, of which there are countless many.

The Jesuit method is one of patient subversion, which is used to ever more divide society so that The Roman Empires Church and its affiliated groups can continue to conquer, and so RULE. This as laid down in various mission statements by Ignatius of Loyola the infamous founder of the Jesuit Orders.

25 March 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Corrigan @ 00.18 said 'The US fought a civil war for a batch of reasons, and slavery was the last of them.' Uncharitable, but then it seems that no democratic nation lives up to your exacting, but unspecified standards. We may agree that the underlying reason for the US Civil War was States Rights, but slavery was undoubtedly the catalyst, being a clear States Right issue.

You say of slavery, 'the particular piece of sanctimony the north wrapped itself in to give it the higher moral ground,' and 'but the issue was about wheather or not America was one nation'. Doesn't the closing sentence of the Gettysburg Address both disprove your first phrase and prove your second?

'...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'

In the middle of the nineteenth century, before women anywhere could vote, this was revolutionary comment by a politician. No continental European politician of the era would have dreamed of expressing these thoughts. Lincoln was a man without artifice. The mood of the North was undoubtedly sincere in opposing slavery, it was more than an issue of seizing the moral high ground. You can see the imprint of the war in US politics today through the Blue State-Red State divide.

The UK wavered and offered tacit support to the Confederacy to protect its own cotton industry. Once the Confederacy defaulted on its bonds, British interest in the CSA evaporated. Consequently the UK never committed to the South and remained neutral. The presence of the RN in the Atlantic served as a warning to other European powers not to get involved in the war.

As a matter of interest, are you able to name a nation state which meets with your approval?

Or would a decision compromise your cynicism?

25 March 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

G Tingey

After all Adolf was a catholic

If you are going to make historical argument, at least make credible historical arguments. I know atheists who call themselves Catholic. Hitler was no more Catholic than I am. The Nazi Party executed a systematic plan to de-Christianize Germany, or if you prefer to Nazify Christianity. They even re-wrote Christmas Carols around Hitler. The Nazi party considered Christianity an enemy.

carl

25 March 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan

None of which explain why it was alright for America to stay out until it was bombed in, or why it was wrong for Ireland to stay out when it wasn't bombed in

Well then, let me connect the (obvious) dots for you. The US is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The US had reason to believe it could survive British defeat.

Ireland on the other hand is less than 100 miles west of England. Ireland's independence as a nation depended upon British victory. Here, let me repeat that obvious fact so you don't miss it. Ireland's independence as a nation depended upon British victory. German victory would have meant the incorporation of Ireland into the orbit of the Reich, and the presence of German soldiers in Ireland.

Now, I don't know, maybe it's just me. But it seems axiomatic to me that a nation whose continued existence depended upon British victory would (you know) do everything in its %$#^ing power to aid and assist the British in winning! All that nonsense Dodo listed earlier about the effects of the Great Depression and Britain lying to Ireland in negotiations just doesn't seem all that important when stacked up against the possibility of some Nazi party official in Berlin appointing a Gauleiter of Ireland.

Do you follow now?

Irish policy only makes sense if Ireland was 100% convinced of British victory, and who would have thought that the case in 1940? Unless of course the level of support in Ireland for Hitler was much higher than some have intimated. How far should we follow that road?

carl

25 March 2012 at 14:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan

And then, of course, we have the 'land without a people for a people without a land' argument.

Do you really not know these things? Do you remember all those powerful people in the US government who opposed Truman in his efforts? For example, the US Defense Dept, the US State Dept, Sec'y State George Marshall. (They would be the one's supporting the 'brown-skinned' Arabs, btw.) One of the principle arguments they made against large scale immigration of Jews to Palestine was the fact that Palestine couldn't support a population of more than 500,000 people. The argument went like this you see. "We will send all the Jews to Palestine and they will starve because they won't have any work." The Jews went to great efforts to develop a credible economic plan to prove they could make the land support the increased population.

Do you really not know these things?

carl

25 March 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

IanCad said @ 25 March 2012 12:14..for which Ernst must disagree with him on those very rare occasions and this is one of them;

"With Carl Jacobs posting so much sense on matters Spiritual and historic I can only comment on the issue of semantics.

The term "Replacement Theology" has acquired a perjorative dimension tending to stifle rational debate with those who hold that the Nation of Israel has no further role in God's plan of redemption.(As the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are eternal and unconditional, unlike the mosaix covenant, the debate MUST be held on biblical grounds and the term of reference must consider Repalcement theology held by RC and most formal protestant divisions, that denies God has any plan for Israel as the church has replaced it as opposed to the letters and opinions expressed and held by early church fathers (up until Augustine, who 'ammileniumised' distinct prophecies relating to Israel and applying them completely to the RCC in particular) and the Holy Apostles, that God has NOT forgotten Israel nor cast them aside forever and that Israel's and the Church's origin's and destiny's are different but has all things culminating in His full plan and purpose!)
Much as in academia the term "Global Warming Denier" automatically consigns the holder of such a view to neanderthal status; RT does the same in religious matters by implying that those who support the hypothesis are "Anti-Semites" or "Nascent Nazis."(Global warming is a man made supposed scientific proposition based on limited scientific knowledge and historical data and then making assumptions based upon them and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Word of God as His Word is Immutable and Unchanging. There can be no error except by our applying it wrongly! Any catastrophe spoken of in the latter days within the Bible regarding the earth starts from God's judgment on the earth, not mans failure to steward it correctly!!!)
The eschatological meanderings of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye (author of the Left Behind" books) have had a toxic effect not only on american Christians but also on their foreign policy ( Late Great planet Earth was published on 4th May 1970 Left Behind books were printed between 1995-2007 whereas the policy of supporting Israel has been held by America since the birth of the nation). A huge number of conservative evangelicals swallow the dispensationalist fallacy that includes an unbiblical "Rapture" and the centrality of the Nation of Israel to end time events (Wrong. The belief was held by the early church fathers, who some were direct disciples of St John etc who passed it on to their disciples and the scattered churches through letters and historical statements such as Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Eusebius etc. All of this is available for you to investigate.
Replacement theology was introduced by St Augustine as a doctrine that demanded the RCC was in charge during it's now millenium eign on behalf of Christ!, It was ISRAEL. We now, laughingly, after many world wars especially 1 & 2, know this was and is not the case.)

It should be noted that this teaching was initially espoused by, of all people, the "Plymouth Bretheren.(For well over a millenia the RCC had precedence over the western world and suppressed the belief in a dispensation of God as held earlier by ECF's and this error was brought over by protestantism and it's founders such as Luther and Calvin)"

Trust that helps MrCad and Ernst will offer evidence from the Holy Bible and ECF's letters should you wish.

Ernst

25 March 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty
'Replacement Theology' has never been a formal doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church.

25 March 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Way of the Dodo

Utter Rubbish, It all turned on the announcement of ammillenialism by St Augustine!

Ammillenialism was systematised by St. Augustine in the 4th century, and this systematisation carried amillennialism over as the dominant eschatology of the Medieval and Reformation periods.
Augustine was originally a premillennialist, but he retracted that view, claiming the doctrine was carnal??? Not based on the text in the Holy Bible or the ECF's then, was it!!!!!!

City of God, Book 20, chapter 7 titled Chapter 7.— What is Written in the Revelation of John Regarding the Two Resurrections, and the Thousand Years, and What May Reasonably Be Held on These Points.

Not reasonably held by Ernst as real valid points as NOT biblical, hence rejected Ernst but still held by Rome as RCC supremacy.


Ernst

25 March 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty
St Augustine was a theologian and Catholicism permits and encourages debate and discussion within its established doctrines.

When a formal position is needed to resolve disputes and remove heresy, it makes one.

The Church teaches that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. Nevertheless, it does not teach that the Jewish people themselves are irrelevant in terms of eschatology and Biblical prophecy. The Church recognizes an ongoing and unique relationship between the Jewish people, God and the Church and teaches that there is an integral continuity between the covenants rather than a rupture.

The covenant between God and the People of Israel, established through the mediation of Moses at Mount Sinai, has been replaced by 'New Covenant' of Jesus Christ. The Mosaic covenant, with its ritual and dietary requirements, Sabbath observance, etc., is no longer valid for the Jewish people, since God’s revealed will is for Jews, as well as Gentiles, to enter into the New Covenant by baptism and faith in Jesus as the promised Messiah.

As for the 'Rapture' - well I'll leave this speculation to one side.

That how it is and how it has always been and will always be.

25 March 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

What seems to be 'overlooked' by the anti-Israel faction is that the Balfor Declaration promised a "Two State" dispensation in Palestine in 1917, toprovide a secure "homeland" for the Jews living there under an oppresive Arab regime. It is also often argued that there were "no Jews in Israel" before the British Mandate which is a patent nonsense, the Romans "scattered" the nation, they didn't purge the land of Jews, just the ruling classes. Read Josephus for the history, which is also confirmable from Roman sources.

In 1919, the British Government renegged on the Two State solution under pressure from the Grand Mufti of Mecca and in a desperate attempt to salvage some at least of their position when it became evident that Lawrence had made and signed all manner of treaties with Arab tribesmen to get their support. That breach of promise sparked Jewish mistrust of the British, and the succeeding years when the British and their Arab allies made it ever more difficult for Jews fleeing first the Bolsheviks and then the spreading anti-semitism in Europe to immigrate (Or to go anywhere else!), the Jews did what is now condoned in the Irish "Troubles", in Kenya, the Congo, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and South Africa to name but a few. Strangely, only the Jews are condemned in some quarters as "terrorists" while the rest are lauded as "freedom fighters" or "liberators." We conveniently ignore the very strong possiblilty that Eamon de Valera may well have had a hand in the assassination of Michael Collins ... Arafat is lauded as a "Freedom Fighter" as are Hamas and Hezbollah, but the Isreali equivalents are referred to as "gangs" or "terrorists." Interesting...

Ironically, Balfor's "Two States" now exist - Isreal and Jordon, despite Britain's attempt to hand over Israel to the Arabs (The Jordanian Army was commanded in 1946 - 48 by British officers), the Jews won. We forget the Arabs had clearly stated they intended to "purge the land" of Jews as soon as the British withdrew. We also forget that they told their own people to leave - or be considered Jewish.

There is no Palestine, the land so called by the British is Israel, and Trans Jordan is now the Kingdom of Jordan - which attacked Israel after the UN had recognised the original boundaries in 1948 and seized the West Bank, East Jerusalem and, with the Egyptian Army, Gaza.

The "Palestinian People" have a choice, accept their Jordanian citizenship or become Israeli.

25 March 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
How much do you actually know about pre-Second World War European history?

The struggle on the continent between fascism, communism and liberal-democracy affected all the nations, including Ireland. To suggest Ireland did not enter the war because of tacit support for Hitler is a gross lie. There were forces within Ireland that would have aligned themselves for or against communism, rather than for or against Hitler. And there was considerable support for Hitler with in the British elite too.

Now, you're the man who rpeatedly claims nations fight wars to protect and promote their own interests. That's why you support Israel and Saudi Arabia. Was Ireland not permitted to considerthe same right?

She did not break neutrality because it was not in her interests so to do.

The Irish Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, Joe Walshe, said in 1941:

" ... small nations like Ireland do not and cannot assume a role as defenders of just causes except [their] own ... Existence of our own people comes before all other considerations ... no government has the right to court certain destruction for its people; they have to take the only chance of survival and stay out."

And De Valera's had a clear policy:

"The desire of the Irish people and the desire of the Irish Government is to keep our nation out of war. The aim of Government policy is to maintain and to preserve our neutrality in the event of war. The best way and the only way to secure our aim is to put ourselves in the best position possible to defend ourselves so that no one can hope to attack us or violate our territory with impunity. We know, of course, that should attack come from a power other than Great Britain, Great Britain in her own interest must help us to repel it."

Seems a pretty sensible policy to me and one tacitly supporting Great Britain by acknowledging it would not surrender to Nazism and recognising Britain would support her should Hitler invade.

Let's face it, the good old USA arrived late on the scene because it served its interests rather than 'truth, liberty and justice'.

25 March 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Grey Monk

The ctual text of the Balfour Declaration:

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.

Now, is this a two state solution? Is a 'homeland' the same thing as statehood? And the rights of the existing non-Jewish communities?

A recipe for deception, double-dealing and duplicity. British Governments used it to mean whatever the situation warrenteed at the time according to the audience they were addressing.

25 March 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ernst,

That the Jewish people have survived and thrived is evidence of God's miraculous protection over them.
The Abrahamic covenant was partialy fulfilled in the times of King David and King Solomon; and further confirmed in the sacrifice of Christ.
All covenants are conditional. There is no "if" in the Abrahamic, granted, but Deutronomy chap.28 clarifies the woes that will befall those who violate God's Law.
All Christian teaching should be anchored on the words of Jesus in John 14:6. "--- no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
There is no "get out of jail free card," We have the free will to accept or reject this teaching.
The Jewish people are looking for a saviour who has already come. It is a sad fact that most Jewish religious studies are based on the Talmud and not the Old Testament. This makes it very difficult to spread the Gospel message to these wonderful people. They are truly an "astonishment" and a "byword."
True, America has been a supporter of the State of Israel from its creation. However, this early support was prompted by an urgent need to redress the shameful act of turning away the MS. St. Louis in nineteen thirty nine. Most American support of Israel today that does not stem from equity is rooted in the theology of the modern dispensationalists.
There is nothing new under the sun. The teachings of John Darby and the Plymouth Bretheren are just a later iteration of an old theological theory which has been bandied about for millenia. It is from this denomination that most of the modern dispensationalists claim their roots.
Ernst, I have many times meant to respond to your many informative posts. You have greatly enlightened me with some of the hidden gems from the early church writers. Strange, I thank you now through a thread on which we hold opposing views.

25 March 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Way of the Dodo, in a speech following the declaration, Balfor himself made reference to "two states." As you say, the weasel words were interpretted according to the audience ... The Two States ideas were raised in 1919 but torpedoed by the Arab side.

One also has to wonder why certain files on Jewish migration out of Europe and into Israel remain "sealed' to this day.

The wider I read in history, the more ashamed I become of the political sell-outs, manipulations, double-dealing and rank dishonesty the leaders of my nation indulged in - all in the so-called "interests" of themselves.

25 March 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. the link you provided was about a man who DESERTED his country’s army to go and fight in another country’s army. The Inspector cannot believe a man of your integrity would seek to make capital out of a serious offence like that, so will not insult you by arguing that situation further....

Then you have Spin how you like. There was no excuse for neutrality in that war.. You are losing the plot, Sir !

Where were the US anti fascist volunteer brigade, supported by your government, sent to the UK by a sympathetic USA in 1940. True, the UK (...NOT the British Empire, one would add...), had your support on the quiet and 50 old ropey destroyers publically, in exchange for some of our naval bases, but it was the Canadians who helped us out. Any sympathetic American would have had to make his way there to join in.

25 March 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

How much do you actually know about pre-Second World War European history?

...

Nothing. Nothing at all. World War II started when agents of Tsar Napolean II assassinated Archbishop Ferdinand Magellan, heir to the Throne of Eurabia right?

the good old USA arrived late on the scene because it served its interests rather than 'truth, liberty and justice'.

Yes! You are right. When did I say otherwise? Follow the logic here. The debate in the US was about the level of threat presented to the US by Hitler's Germany. Many Americans felt that it wasn't a threat - that we were safe behind our ocean. That's why the US didn't enter the war in 1940. FDR did not share that opinion of Germany, but many Americans did. That's why FDR is truly classified as great President. He recognized the lethality of the threat.

Many in the US opposed going to fight in yet another a European war that was of no concern to the US. It wasn't about whether Hitler was a bad guy. It was about American interest and the willingness of the public to fight. FDR did all he could to move the American public in the direction of war, but that public attitude was not going to be moved until Pearl Harbor.

Seems a pretty sensible policy to me and one tacitly supporting Great Britain by acknowledging it would not surrender to Nazism and recognising Britain would support her should Hitler invade.

Ireland is part of Europe, and stand less than 100 miles to the west of Britain. Ireland had no army or navy of consequence, so Ireland stands or falls with Britain. Hitler never had reason to invade Ireland. He would get it for free with the conquest of Britain. If Britain had collapsed, Hitler would have growled, and Ireland and would have rolled over. So Ireland is defenseless without Britain and useful to Germany. The Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine could have used the forward bases in Ireland as well. Britain had to win or Ireland would have become a vassal state of the Reich.

Now in what universe does any relationship with Britain come off worse than being a vassal state of Hitler? The Irish self-interest (as your oft-repeated quote demonstrates) was survival. How then does Ireland survive if Britain loses? And who actually thought Britain could win in 1940? Ireland should have been doing anything and everything it could to help Britain - especially with the U Boat war! And yet it didn't.

I can quickly think of four possible reasons for why Ireland did what it did.

1. Pre-emptive appeasement. This is called "Making sure we are positioned to be on the good side of whoever wins this war - which at the moment looks suspiciously like it might be Germany."

2. Cynical duplicity. As in "We will defend Ireland to the last Englishman." This makes good sense if the Irish gov't thought Britain would ultimately win. But in 1940/41 that would have been an insane policy prediction.

3. Irrational Hatred. As in "We hate the British so much we would rather be slaves of Germany if it meant Britain would be destroyed." Not likely, but possible down deep.

4. Divided Loyalty. As in "The Irish Gov't was afraid of the public reaction that would attend siding with Britain." Here we close on what I think is the truth. Ireland was too divided to go to war. In that case it was like America in 1940, but for very different reasons.

You didn't even read the article about the treatment of Irish soldiers who fought with the British against Hitler, did you? You didn't see the quote from the Historian saying as much as 60% of the Irish population either expected or hoped for a German victory. One historian. Not necessarily truth. But necessarily false either. Especially when it fits the facts so well.

carl

25 March 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Well, yes, they did technically desert. But since their actual crime could be described as "Desertion in the face of inaction to go and fight the enemy" I think maybe a pardon would have been in order. And maybe a national "Thank you" as well. But that sort of action would have carried certain ... implications ... that many would have found uncomfortable.

In any case, if you disapprove of the actions of those 5000 men, you should subtract them from the figure of 40,000 you quoted earlier.

carl

25 March 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo wriggled but

"St Augustine was a theologian and Catholicism permits and encourages debate and discussion within its established doctrines. "

Dera Bird

St Augustine was/is considered the most pre-eminent Doctor of The Church in Rome and is a saint canonised by them!

When the Western Roman Empire was visibly starting to disintegrate, St Augustine developed the concept of the Roman Catholic Church as a spiritual City of God (The same title Ernst quoted earlier started in 413- finished in 426), as distinct from the material Earthly City but of which it is impossible to seperate the two.

His thoughts in writing profoundly influenced the medieval worldview. Augustine's City of God was closely identified with the Church, the full community that worshipped God whether pope or plebian.

Augustine's influence on Western Christianity can be claimed as third only to Paul and Our Lord Jesus.
His great influence on Luther and Calvin would distort Protestant outlooks right up to the present day.
Augustine's views expressed in the City of God and City of Man is still the vision of repressive Puritanism and modern extreme Protestant fundamentalism as seen on the God Channel.
Heaven on earth NOW, despite what God says on how it will be done and when!!

ernst

25 March 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Agreed, a pardon would be in order as these men acted according to their conscience. If you ever study the Irish Free State history in detail, you will find that the government was quite ruthless regarding it’s position, and it was it’s position which counted, not the peoples. It all came from the way it treated it’s internal enemies after independence, which included the losing side of the IRA. Execution and internment. So, that country’s attitude to European events was nothing more than the collective decision of a handful of men, most notably De Valera, himself a soldier of the winning side of the IRA.

25 March 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty dsid ...

Augustine's influence on Western Christianity can be claimed as third only to Paul and Our Lord Jesus.

Catholic doctrine has been shaped by the Holy Spirit, not by the theological writings of individuals. It is the Holy who inspired the writers of the New Testament and who guides the Church in what to accept and reject from the Church Fathers and Doctors.

25 March 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

^ Holy Spirit ^

25 March 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Catholic doctrine has been shaped by the Holy Spirit, not by the theological writings of individuals.

Heh.

Ernst is approaching the ball. He will find it just a little left of center, and well within the fairway. No rough there. Beautiful vision to the green from where it lies. Not much danger of ending up in that bunker to the left. About a five iron should do nicely from this distance. Maybe 180 yards.

carl

25 March 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Corrigan 1 seems to be slipping into his own personal anti-american inferno. Carl Jacobs has been studious in his restraint in his replies.

25 March 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
And I thought you'd pick him upon this comment:

His (Augustine) great influence on Luther and Calvin would distort Protestant outlooks right up to the present day.

The Catholic Church sorted it's position out on original sin and grace at the Council of Trent. An example of how theological writings and discussions within the Church lead, in time, to authoritative teachings and doctrines from the Church.

25 March 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I thought about it. I thought about it real hard. I even had a response formulated in my mind to the exact sentence you picked out. But I really don't like arguing about eschatology. I thought any comment would inevitably lead in that direction.

carl

25 March 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl
Fair enought but our resident doctor of theology rarely discloses what he believes, prefering insread to say what he is opposed to.

Now me, I'd have asked: what distortions? Original Sin, Grace, Baptism and Predestination? What?

Maybe he'll respond to my inquiry.

26 March 2012 at 01:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Nah. Ernst has always struck me as a pretty level-headed guy. I was pretty sure he was talking about Amillenialism when he made reference to Calvin's "errors." What else could it be?

;)

carl

26 March 2012 at 01:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

So long as there is agreement any and every error there might be all originated from a Catholic theologian, you'll be okay.

26 March 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ian cad responded to old Ernsty

"but Deutronomy chap.28 clarifies the woes that will befall those who violate God's Law."
The mosaic is always conditional and deals with faithfulness to trust in God and Obey his Precepts towards them under that covenant or they will face discipline and ultimate eviction from the land, which they did.

It is called the cycles of discipline in Dueteronomy and must be repented of the Nation at each cycle or they will proceed to the next! However the Abrahamic and Davidic are unconditional and all honouring of these 2 said covenants are Godwards not manwards!Man plays no part in the honouring..do this or?


You state "All Christian teaching should be anchored on the words of Jesus in John 14:6. "--- no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." But Christ makes a specific refernce to Israel by Hosea
"Hosea 5
15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early."

John 1:11-12

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Old Ernst quotes the last part of that verse for emphasis upon the need of receiving Christ; and oft-times in so doing we fail to emphasize, as we should, the first part of the verse, that originally He came to the Jewish nation. The Jewish nation did not receive Him, so He turned to the Gentiles.

Matthew 23
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 [Notice carefully MrCad] Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Why did the Lord Jesus Christ go away? Because of the offense that was committed against Him in rejecting Him as the Messiah of Israel.


The purpose of the discipline, the purpose of the chastening, is that He might bring them back to God; that is the reason that He speaks of it as pleading with them.

Turn in your Bible MrCad, please, to the book of Ezekiel, chapter 20. You will recognize how this comes about, for there in inded in chapter 20 of the book of Ezekiel reference is made to the very period of time which we are talking about. The Lord Jesus Christ has gone back to Heaven, and during this time He is dealing with the nation of Israel upon the earth in the manner described in verse 33:
Ezekiel 20
33 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, will I rule over you:

Yes, God is ruling over the nation of Israel, scattered as she is to the four corners of the earth, but He is ruling with fury poured forth.
That is the reason Israel has suffered as she has, suffered down through the years since she cried, “Let his blood be upon us.”
But God will not forsake them in the midst of His fury poured forth, for you read in verse 34:
Ezekiel 20
34 And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.
35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face.
36 Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD.

Notice, the punishing and the pleading are combined. What is the Lord Jesus Christ doing? Pleading with the nation of Israel through disciplinary measures that she might recognize her need of Him.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."

Ernst

26 March 2012 at 13:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernsty dsid ...

Catholic doctrine has been shaped by the Holy Spirit, not by the theological writings of individuals (What utter nonsense as the theological doctrine of RCC has been shaped by it's committee's and Popes and Doctors of the church). It is the Holy who inspired the writers of the New Testament (It was indeed!) and who guides the Church in what to accept and reject from the Church Fathers and Doctors (The Holy Spirit is the author of both the OLD and NEW Testament, how is it therefore possible for Him to go against His stated word as revealed by RCC Dogma?).

Carl stated "I thought about it. I thought about it real hard. I even had a response formulated in my mind to the exact sentence you picked out. But I really don't like arguing about eschatology. I thought any comment would inevitably lead in that direction."

And you a calvinist..What on earth was the reformation about then?

However Replacement Theology can be distinguished by two main areas of statement;

1. Israel’s role as the people of God was completed (economic supersessionism). This is the kinder and gentler way of stating the basic thesis of Replacement Theology. It says that once the Messiah came 2,000 years ago, Israel’s mission was completed. A transition occurred at that point, and the Church took over as the people of God and became the focal point for the outworking of God’s plan and purpose in redemption. God is no longer working administratively through ethnic Israel.

2. Israel’s place as the people of God was forfeited (punitive supersessionism). Other Replacement theologians are more straightforward and actually say that the supposed replacement of Israel was a divine judgment on the nation for its rejection of the Messiah in the first century. This is what some writers have called “punitive secessionism.”

The problem for supersessionism and amillennialism is that these views are not in harmony with the teachings of the Apostles and the Early Church. Almost without exception, Church historians agree that chiliasm, an early form of premillennialism, was the position of the Early (Jewish) Church. In his classic, encyclopedic History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff wrote, “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene Age [A.D. 100-325] is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, … a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius …” (Scribner, 1884; Vol. 2, p. 614).

IRONY, because..

Schaff, in fact, was himself an ardent supersessionist! He wrote, “The carnal Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament is a diabolical perversion. The Christians, and not the Jews, are the true Israel of God and the righteous owners of the Old Testament Scriptures” Yet even as a student of history and as a scholar, he had to acknowledge that chiliasm was “prominent” in the Early Church, even though he himself utterly despised it.

Please note that that Papias (who believed in a future, earthly Kingdom) was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John who actually penned the passages in the Book of Revelation about the Millennial Kingdom. Premillennialism, then, may be the only eschatological system with an unbroken link directly to the author of the Apocalypse. This means that amillennialism represents a departure from what the Early Church believed. Augustine (354-430), author of City of God, as Ernst has previously mentioned, which was a 22-volume defense of his theological views, proposed ideas similar to what we know as amillennialism (Books 15 to 19). However, even Augustine started out as a premillennialist! It wasn’t until later in his life that he decided that the prophecies about (and promises to) Israel should be interpreted symbolically and applied to the Church, rather than being interpreted literally and applied to Israel.

Trust this helps, boys!

Ernst

26 March 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo sqwuwked at Ernst

'carl
Fair enought but our resident doctor of theology rarely discloses what he believes, prefering insread to say what he is opposed to.'

Ask and it shall be revealed, It is not stated because you never ask Ernst particular things, only stating RCC dogma that Ernst largely rejects!.

Firstly Ernst is neither RC nor Calvinist so that should narrow it down a bit, what!

Are RCC and Protestant churches aprt of His church? yes! Read revelation..the only epistle EVER stated by Our Lord directly from HIM. The Gospels are the recollections by Apostles guided inerrantly by the Holy Spirit.

However you are both in error and need to repent..Do read the Lord's report cards that are applicable to your relevant churches..The Lord promises the RCC will be dealt with unless it changes and repents but it will NOT, hence judgment later.

Ernst

Ernst

26 March 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger thestreetman said...

@ IanCad

Thanks but no thanks.

@ YG

Thanks and thanks again.

A Jew

26 March 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ernst

And you a calvinist..What on earth was the reformation about then?

Sola Fide. Specifically, it was about overturning the manifest errors regarding Justifictaion that Rome had agglomerated onto the Gospel. See the Council of Trent for a complete list of Roman errors on this subject. Because Rome appealed to her own authority
to establish all these errors, the Reformation was also about Authority. Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia.

But eschatology? No need. Rome is right about eschatology.

carl

26 March 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Carl

Why you are amillenialist as ernst has previously stated and Ernst is with the Apostles and ECF's as pre-millenial. A 'No brainer' really, unless of course we are still in the millenial period as suggested but as satan refuses to be bound, the bounder, the Lord has been forced to call for a replay so we can play for another 1000 yrs, til we get the right result! 2 out of 3 satan??? *Chortles at such nonsense believed*

Ernst 'chiliasm' Blofeld, me calvinist chappie.

26 March 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ernst,
You are a busy man and obviously spend much time researching and quoting. I am trying to digest all of your posts of today but I will respond briefly to the 13:55 one.
The Scriptures define Israel in many, many verses. In addition to the ones already cited by others on this thread let me add a few more.
Romans 11:17-24 The olive tree represents the faithful Israelites who were still true to the God of their Fathers. The unbelieving Jews (Branches) were broken off. The believing Gentiles were the wild olive shoots grafted in their place. Natural branches (The Jews) who spurned their faith could be grafted back again. "for God has the power to graft them in again"
That the Gentiles should be "--fellow heirs--" is shown in Ephesians 3:6. That they are"no longer strangers and sojourners" but "fellow citizens with saints and members of the household of God" is made plain in Ephesians 2:12, 19.
Exodus 19:5,6. is echoed in 1 Peter 2:9, 10. "A royal priesthood; A Holy nation; A peculiar people; that you should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light"

26 March 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty said ...
Ernst is neither RC nor Calvinist so that should narrow it down a bit, what!

Yep, to about 19,998 other possible protestant groups!

And are you stating Revelation is superior to the rest of the New Teatament? Bit suspect that.

And as for the 'report card'. well, you'll have to enlighten me. Which one are you claiming for yourself? And, reports on the the one church back in the 1st century don't seem applicable somehow to the 21st century.

26 March 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the very unlearned asked Ernst.

Why oh why must Ernst explain the most simplest thing that even a child would comprehend because it is in plain english.

IT IS A FACT that the last book of the New Testament written by an Apostle was St John's Book of Revelation of The Lord Jesus Christ 'Note Our Blessed Saviour's command to John, verse 19: "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place AFTER this." 'and was accepted by majority of ECF's upto Augustine, who had problems with the Hebrew imagery but obviously he conveniently forgot that St John was , yessy yessy, a JEW!!! and the vast majority of the Book of Revelation is relating to Israel and the Jews in the last days whilst Antichrist is present as the Church has been taken away!!!!. remember he is viewing all events from Heaven after the Lampstands are removed to Heaven..HELLO??.

Revelation 4

1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were SEVEN LAMPS of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

St John was the last of the Apostle's living who did not suffer a martyrs death but was exiled on Patmos hence the last known recorded link to the apostles carried on by his disciple Polycarp etc.

Ernst 'utterly exasperated' Blofeld

27 March 2012 at 12:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo fishing up the wrong Tiber

"Yep, to about 19,998 other possible protestant groups!" Ernst is not a formal 'Protestant', only in the expressed view he is NOT Roman Catholic as opposed!!

pps

'1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.(as opposed to the 'now' his spirit had been viewing things in)'

It's called Time Travelling in the spirit, by Divine Command.

Ernst, my likkle dickie.

27 March 2012 at 12:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Just so long as you are absolutely sure about your guide, your readings and your coordinates. It can be a funny thing time travel in the spirit and it is not without hazards -so much can go wrong.

27 March 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger len said...

Anti Semitism is a fact. it has always been so.
Anti Semitism exists within the Church and has been endorsed and encouraged within the Church ..much to its shame.
There is a hatred of the Jews which is beyond reason.
Anti Semitism is a spiritual force and has spiritual origins.It is the anti Christ spirit which opposes all that God plans for His people Israel.
All those who oppose Israel IDENTIFY THEMSELVES as enemies of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Does this mean that the Jews are perfect people and without sin.?.No but God is working out His plans for Israel and all that oppose His plans oppose God Himself!.

1 April 2012 at 09:15  
Blogger peter roberts said...

Well written, Sizer has a bad track record of making some malicious comments, especially in front of sympathetic audiences, and then mllifying them later.
Messianic Jews being 'an abomination' before a PSC rally, being a recent example.
He's a complete disgrace to the Anglican communion.

16 April 2012 at 23:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older