Would you please make the effort to stay op-relevant? I don't tolerate those who try to hijack another's ops well, and I have even less patience for those who try to enlist me in their subterfuge.
You broach a very important point but do so poorly, imo. The fundamental problem is that modern Israel is not covenant Israel (even though
@Krav Maga has posted otherwise). Christians should support covenant Israel because we share a common root and covenant relationship with God through Christ (where, again, Krav is not likely to agree because of his inherent Dispensationalist biases). Understanding that is going to depend on an accurate understanding of what constitutes covenant Israel (and what does not). Christians may or may not support modern Israel for various reasons, scriptural and extra-scriptural (such as their being an ally, or any potential covenant our earthly countries may have with Israel, or because they are the only democracy in the area, or......etc., etc., etc. The second fundamental (and I mean
fundamental) problem with the op is that it is very, very difficult to get a Dispensationalist to read scripture outside of Dispensationalism, apply scripture outside of Dispensationalism, and make a non-Dispensational case that applies to ALL Christians. It's very difficult to get a direct, immediate actual answer to questions asked when asked (as this thread is proving). 24
proof-texted verses do not prove anything, and thinking such an eisegetic mess is proof of anything is one of the many other problems to be solved.
This op claims to assert a "
biblical approach" to the Israeli war in Gaza, purportedly for the purpose of proving Christians (all Christians, not just Dispensationalists, modern Zionists, and other modern futurists) MUST stand united with Israel. None of us are going to get anywhere until
@Krav Maga is able to summarize this op into a single thesis statement. There are several problems with this op but they're not worth broaching until a thesis is established. I doubt anyone wants to get bogged down in the minutiae of many errors without a common understanding of the overall reason(s) for the op. Thank you for volunteering your point of view, but I'm not (yet) interested in your, or anyone else's, answer to the question asked until I have the op's answer.
Does that make sense?
The only direct answer I've received so far is the acknowledgement he's a Dispensationalist,
and I sincerely appreciate his answering that question immediately, directly, and succinctly. I know he can do so when he wants to do so
. So maybe before digging into the op, let's wait on his answer to the foundational question:
Why should Christians stand united for Israel?
His short answer is going to be, "
Because the Bible says so!" to which I will ask, "
Where does the Bible explicitly state Christians are to support the modern geo-political nation-state called Israel?"
Krav is smart enough to foresee that. Krav is knowledgeable enough of scripture to answer the question without a Dispensational bias. I have confidence in his abilities, not so much in his objectivity.
