Evidence for God from Science

Ok, this is a very touchy subject. I realize that... But is Christian zionism, in your view, sound biblical doctrine? One thing I see are evangelicals targeting Jews for conversion, in other words, Christians supporting the movement in order for that to happen.. This is something that erks me.. Greatly actually. However, there is also the need for believers to be open to the things of God.. A lot of what I'm talking about get's into replacement theology, I realize that...

Thoughts? Again, this is just a discussion.. I'm going to try to stay neutral here.

No. There is no Christian doctrine that concerns a piece of real estate or a temple mount where false worship occurs.

A lot of Christian theorists seem to think that "X will happen before the second coming" somehow means means "If we get X to happen, the second coming will happen sooner".

It seems to imply that God is waiting to set the Apocalyspe in action as soon as people are able to create the conditions described in Revelations. If people created a restored Isreal in hopes that the Apocalyspe will happen as a result, but it wasn't actually time for it to happen, the verse would've probably been talking about another occurance in the future.

puritan lad wrote:No. There is no Christian doctrine that concerns a piece of real estate or a temple mount where false worship occurs.

Thanks PL. How about in the OT? I just want to know your reasons..

The root error of Zionist movement is based on the idea that the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 22:15-18) has yet to be fulfilled, when it clearly has been (Galatians 3:8-9). Zionists push for a future fulfillment via the UN, but the biblical fulfillment is in Christ, the true seed of Abraham.

WIth the root being bad, the rest of the tree is necessarily rotten.

puritan lad wrote:The root error of Zionist movement is based on the idea that the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 22:15-18) has yet to be fulfilled, when it clearly has been (Galatians 3:8-9). Zionists push for a future fulfillment via the UN, but the biblical fulfillment is in Christ, the true seed of Abraham.

WIth the root being bad, the rest of the tree is necessarily rotten.

Ok... I'm going to play the devils advocate here. Would you only say that in light of the NT teachings or could you say that this position is also revealed in the OT teachings themselves? Also would you say that the seed of Abraham no longer exists in the Jewish state?

Thanks

Gman wrote:Ok... I'm going to play the devils advocate here. Would you only say that in light of the NT teachings or could you say that this position is also revealed in the OT teachings themselves?

I'll answer this in two ways. First, one of my many objections to dispensationalism (the root of most zionist theology) is their effort to pit Scripture against Scripture. The NT is always a valid way to interpret OT teachings, regardless how OT Judaists would have understood them. At the very least, we know that the Judaists got all of the Messianic prophecies wrong. The NT shed lights upon the shadows of the OT, therefore the NT fulfillment is the literal fulfillment.

Secondly, the Abrahamic Covenant was never about a race or a nation, even in the OT. There were many Hebrew citizens that were not Abraham's seed, while there were many non-Hebrews (Rahab, Ruth, Uriah) who were. The seed of Abraham was to bless all nations.

Gman wrote:Also would you say that the seed of Abraham no longer exists in the Jewish state?

The Seed of Abraham exists whereever there are Christians, including the Jewish state.

Gman wrote:Ok, this is a very touchy subject. I realize that... But is Christian zionism, in your view, sound biblical doctrine? One thing I see are evangelicals targeting Jews for conversion, in other words, Christians supporting the movement in order for that to happen.. This is something that erks me.. Greatly actually. However, there is also the need for believers to be open to the things of God. Now I'm not advocating that Christian Zionism is a "movement of God" however, I wouldn't exactly say that it isn't from God either. A lot of what I'm talking about get's into replacement theology, I realize that...

Thoughts? Again, this is just a discussion.. I'm going to try to stay neutral here.

it maybe a good idea to define the terms better here on what is meant by Christian Zionism and Replacement Theology rather than Wikiprdia links...

One I found on Christian Zionism is here:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/christian ... istory.htm

For Replacement theology - this Link:

http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html

and

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/09 ... -theology/

So Gman and PL - how would you define these two in your own brief words?
-
-
-

I would probably be labeled a "Replacement Theologian", though the term is a misnomer. The charge is that the church of the NT has replaced Israel in the OT as the recipients of the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant. But in actuality, no one has been replaced. The church IS Israel, and always has been, even in the OT.

I would hold that Christian Zionism is a political movement (based on some bad theology) that sees modern Israel (and specifically the Temple Mount) as having an important place in Christian Eschatology.

Those would be my definitions...

puritan lad wrote:I'll answer this in two ways. First, one of my many objections to dispensationalism (the root of most zionist theology) is their effort to pit Scripture against Scripture. The NT is always a valid way to interpret OT teachings, regardless how OT Judaists would have understood them. At the very least, we know that the Judaists got all of the Messianic prophecies wrong. The NT shed lights upon the shadows of the OT, therefore the NT fulfillment is the literal fulfillment.

Hmm.. So with that belief are we to assume that the NT is void of the dispensationalist view or just in the way we interpret that?

Again just asking..

puritan lad wrote:Secondly, the Abrahamic Covenant was never about a race or a nation, even in the OT. There were many Hebrew citizens that were not Abraham's seed, while there were many non-Hebrews (Rahab, Ruth, Uriah) who were. The seed of Abraham was to bless all nations.

Ok.. So likewise if we are not looking at race, there could be citizens who currently live in Israel that could be of Abraham's seed?

puritan lad wrote:The Seed of Abraham exists whereever there are Christians, including the Jewish state.

Or in other words Christians in the Jewish state?

B. W. wrote: So Gman and PL - how would you define these two in your own brief words?
-
-
-

Thanks for the links.. Always good to get more info..

How would I define replacement theology and Christians zionism? I'll try to be brief.

Replacement theology, in a nutshell, is the belief that God's mosaic covenants were transferred or replaced by the NT covenants. In many cases abrogated.. Sometimes I would even view it as an evolution of the covenants. Christian zionism would be the belief that the Jews still have the right to setup their estate or government in the land of Israel. This of course would include their worship and rights on the temple mount.

GMan wrote:Hmm.. So with that belief are we to assume that the NT is void of the dispensationalist view or just in the way we interpret that?

Again just asking..

Dispensationalism is tough to pin down precisely (mostly because it changes every 10 years or so). Just what the different types of dispensationalism includes would require a book that I'm not quite ready to write. But one common theme is a refusal to accept the NT fulfillment of OT prophecy as the actual fulfillment. If the NT says that Elijah has come, that Christ as ascended to the throne of David, and fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant, they cannot accept this. They constantly demand a fulfillment that would be acceptable to "the way the original OT audience would have understood it".

GMan wrote:Ok.. So likewise if we are not looking at race, there could be citizens who currently live in Israel that could be of Abraham's seed?

GMan wrote:Or in other words Christians in the Jewish state?

That is correct.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29)

puritan lad wrote: Dispensationalism is tough to pin down precisely (mostly because it changes every 10 years or so). Just what the different types of dispensationalism includes would require a book that I'm not quite ready to write. But one common theme is a refusal to accept the NT fulfillment of OT prophecy as the actual fulfillment. If the NT says that Elijah has come, that Christ as ascended to the throne of David, and fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant, they cannot accept this. They constantly demand a fulfillment that would be acceptable to "the way the original OT audience would have understood it".

Yes.. But that would be a refusal.. What about those who really haven't understood it fully yet? A blindness...

puritan lad wrote:

GMan wrote:Or in other words Christians in the Jewish state?

That is correct.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29)

Ok, however it seems to me that we could also read into that, in the case of Rahab, Ruth, Uriah, that certain Jews could also fit into criteria as well (a reversal).. That is if we were not to look at race.

GMan, I am genuinely curious about this....

Have you studied the genealogy of the current residents of the country of Israel? The reason I ask is that I have an uncle who did that, and he had some interesting findings, which raised some further questions.

Do you believe Israel to be the bloodline descendants of Abraham, i.e. descending only from the 12 tribes? What are the criteria otherwise...is Israel everyone who believes in orthodox Judaism?

Also, what do you make of the ten tribes that were abducted, never to return? Where do you consider them to fit into the picture? Are they the ones that returned to the area when Israel was established as a country?

Gman wrote:Yes.. But that would be a refusal.. What about those who really haven't understood it fully yet? A blindness...

Understood dispensationalism fully yet, or understood Christ fully yet? Most Christians today (at least in the US) fall into some Dispensational Camp (many have never been introduced to anything else). However, a "consistent" dispensationalist hermeneutic would actually result in a rejection of Christ, since the OT prophecies would have to be fulfilled in a way that the OT audience would understand. Why exclude the Messianic Prophecies?

Even after Christ's resurrection, He had to correct the Apostles' zionism (Acts 1:6-8).

Gman wrote:Ok, however it seems to me that we could also read into that, in the case of Rahab, Ruth, Uriah, that certain Jews could also fit into criteria as well (a reversal).. That is if we were not to look at race.

Jews are not excluded from the Abrahamic Covenant (most of the Apostles were Jews), but they are not included on the basis of being Jews. As a postmillennialist, I hold that we are still in a time where a partial hardening of the Jews (in general) is happening, but they will eventually be grafted back into the vine.