Why they hate Israel

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

The passage you refer to can be understood spiritually. If not, then it refers to the return of the Israelites after the Babylonian exile and not after the Roman exile.

The land of Israel in this world is not holy at all. Christians will not live there. The holy land, the true Israel, is not here on this sin-infested world; it is paradise. The whole world will be destroyed by Jesus in the end. Heaven and earth will pass away.

The passages I quoted are most definitely talking about a physical place on this planet. Not some spiritual realm or the New Earth. What land did God give the Israelites? The land of Israel. So what does it mean when he says "I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel"? That the Jews return to the land of Israel.
Sure, you can say it happened after the Babylonian exile an not after the Roman exile, but the result is the same: the Jews are back in their land. Because it says: "never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them". Never again means they are still there, to this day. Of course 1948 makes more sense when you know history, but if you want to say since the Babylonian exile... sure.

It's very clear by the way that this isn't about heaven. There are no "nations" in heaven, but God said about Israel going back to their own land: "Nations will take them and bring them to their own place." (Isaiah 14:1-2) Guess what. The United Nations did exactly that by voting in favor of the establishment of the state of Israel.

 

[Emun]

The passages I quoted are most definitely talking about a physical place on this planet. Not some spiritual realm or the New Earth. What land did God give the Israelites? The land of Israel. So what does it mean when he says "I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel"? That the Jews return to the land of Israel.
Sure, you can say it happened after the Babylonian exile an not after the Roman exile, but the result is the same: the Jews are back in their land. Because it says: "never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them". Never again means they are still there, to this day. Of course 1948 makes more sense when you know history, but if you want to say since the Babylonian exile... sure.

It's very clear by the way that this isn't about heaven. There are no "nations" in heaven, but God said about Israel going back to their own land: "Nations will take them and bring them to their own place." (Isaiah 14:1-2) Guess what. The United Nations did exactly that by voting in favor of the establishment of the state of Israel.

You call people who do not believe in the cross God's people. What more is there to discuss? Or were the Jews who returned in 1948 Christians?

And the reason why you can't see the spiritual is because you don't have the Holy Spirit.

The Church Fathers, the Catholic Church and historical Protestantism contradict you. Do you know more than all of them?

The funny thing is that even Jehovah's Witnesses understand this.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

You call people who do not believe in the cross God's people. What more is there to discuss? Or were the Jews who returned in 1948 Christians?

And the reason why you can't see the spiritual is because you don't have the Holy Spirit.

The Church Fathers, the Catholic Church and historical Protestantism contradict you. Do you know more than all of them?

The funny thing is that even Jehovah's Witnesses understand this.

Please quote a passage that says that Christians will live on the mountains of Israel. Hint: there isn't any. It says that the Jews will live on the mountains of Israel. The people returning in 1948 were Jews, not Christians. As God prophesied repeatedly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The passage in the Revelation referring to Babylon is almost certainly a reference to Rome. The beast which Babylon rides is colored in the color of the imperial crimson, and the ten heads/crowns of the beast are specifically referred to as a series of kings. This Babylon "makes war with the saints" and is drunk on the blood of the saints--a reference to Roman persecution which began under Nero.

With that said, the reason why there is a lot of animosity toward Israel by some Muslim nations in the Middle East is largely to do with Israel being viewed as a foreign occupying force, which has displaced the native Arab Palestinians. Israel's relationship with western powers, especially the United States, is also viewed with suspicion. Israel's own acts of aggression toward Palestinians has not helped. This doesn't justify acts of terror against Israelis by Palestinians, and so the whole mess is messier. The victims are ordinary people, ordinary Palestinians and ordinary Israelis; with violent extremists both in positions of political power and acting as insurgents and subversives.

What isn't helpful is demonizing anyone. Demonizing Israel or demonizing Palestine only intensifies violence and produces bigotry. For a long time I've seen some demonize Palestinians because of their Islamophobia; but with the rise of Antisemitism I'm also concerned with the demonizing of Israelis. I don't think the OP is being helpful by presenting a quote which suggests Jews have become worse than Hitler, that only bolsters Antisemitism. There are better and more valid ways to be critical of the Israeli government and its treatment of Palestinians which don't compare the descendants of Holocaust survivors with the perpetrators of the Holocaust (which I think is rather disgusting to do).

There are valid criticisms to be made about the Israeli government. Just as there are valid criticisms to be made about Palestinian leadership. But as Christians our chief concern should always be a people who pray for peace, who seek peace. I pray for Palestine, and I pray for Israel. I pray for my brothers and sisters in Palestine and Israel, for there are Christians in both; and I pray for Jews and Muslims. I pray for peace, I pray that the love of God bridge the gaps and build bridges toward peace. And I pray that the Church in the Holy Land be a force for that good, to be peacemakers and bridge builders in the midst of strife and conflict.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did it involve the Ultra Orthodox? I know I've heard that they thought so too (and still do).

It was actually pretty normative among religious Jews of many (most?) stripes. There are still Hasidic Jews who are, on religious grounds, opposed to the established nation of Israel. Zionism was chiefly a secular nationalist movement in its origins, no different than other forms of 19th and early 20th century nationalism in other parts of the world by many other groups of people. With the collapse, for example, of the Ottoman Empire Arab nationalism gave rise to new Arab powers, and the Armenians also gained their own independent state. And Turkey made a brand new Turkey.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emun]

What isn't helpful is demonizing anyone. Demonizing Israel or demonizing Palestine only intensifies violence and produces bigotry. For a long time I've seen some demonize Palestinians because of their Islamophobia; but with the rise of Antisemitism I'm also concerned with the demonizing of Israelis. I don't think the OP is being helpful by presenting a quote which suggests Jews have become worse than Hitler, that only bolsters Antisemitism. There are better and more valid ways to be critical of the Israeli government and its treatment of Palestinians which don't compare the descendants of Holocaust survivors with the perpetrators of the Holocaust (which I think is rather disgusting to do).

So why do you follow Martin Luther? You said you were against antisemitism.

The passage in the Revelation referring to Babylon is almost certainly a reference to Rome.

No it isn't. See:

I believe it's Jerusalem, because...

1. Babylon is the city where the Lord was crucified. (Revelation 11:8)
2. Babylon killed all Prophets and Saints (Revelation 18:24); same did Jesus say about Jerusalem (Matthew 23:30-37).
3. Babylon is the city which was on the beast with the seven heads. The seven heads which are symbolical described mountains aren't literal mountains, they represent Kingdoms. The first six Kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Roman Empire. That Babylon was on the heads means it existed in their times and had influence. Rome only entered the world stage from the sixth head, with the Roman Empire. Jerusalem, on the other hand, existed and had influence since Babylon, and even before. Moreover, Jerusalem has always killed prophets from Babylon to the Roman Empire and even before. Rome did not.

In my opinion, these three points clearly disqualify Rome as Babylon. It can only be Jerusalem. Remember that through the Acts of the Apostles it is known that the Jews were the first to persecute the Church. They are called enemies of God in the NT and Jesus in Revelation calls their synagogues "synagogues of the devil".

Preface, I am not a partial preterist. I believe that the destruction of Babylon does not refer to the event in 70 AD. There will be a third and final destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So why do you follow Martin Luther? You said you were against antisemitism.

I don't follow Martin Luther, I follow Christ. Martin Luther was a good theologian, but a horrible and dreadful sinner. His antisemitism is inexcusable and utterly evil.

Nice attempt at a poisoning-the-well argument though.

No it isn't. See:

Well, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think the argument that it is Rome fits the overall themes of the Apocalypse. I accept the traditional dating of the Apocalypse to the time of Domitian (though a slightly later date during the reign of Trajan may be possible). When St. John wrote the Apocalypse Jerusalem was already practically in ruins, and would experience an even greater turmoil a few decades later following the Bar Kochba Rebellion.

Jerusalem wasn't drunk on the blood of Christian martyrs, but Rome certainly was. Jerusalem wasn't the center of ancient world trade, but Rome certainly ways. Jerusalem wasn't a power-player in world politics, but Rome certainly was.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emun]

I don't follow Martin Luther, I follow Christ. Martin Luther was a good theologian, but a horrible and dreadful sinner. His antisemitism is inexcusable and utterly evil.

Nice attempt at a poisoning-the-well argument though.

Martin Luther did not hate Jews, he hated Judaism. Martin Luther was not the only one, almost every one of the Reformers and Church Fathers despised Judaism.

Well, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think the argument that it is Rome fits the overall themes of the Apocalypse. I accept the traditional dating of the Apocalypse to the time of Domitian (though a slightly later date during the reign of Trajan may be possible). When St. John wrote the Apocalypse Jerusalem was already practically in ruins, and would experience an even greater turmoil a few decades later following the Bar Kochba Rebellion.

Okay, but what does that have to do with my text? I am not a preterist.

Jerusalem wasn't drunk on the blood of Christian martyrs

Do you want to disagree with Jesus (Matthew 23:34-35)?

Jerusalem wasn't the center of ancient world trade, but Rome certainly ways. Jerusalem wasn't a power-player in world politics, but Rome certainly was.

Jerusalem had great influence and was also a major trade center. That their influence must have been great can be seen from the fact that King Herod sought to please the Jews (Acts 12:3).

 

[Clare73]

Martin Luther did not hate Jews, he hated Judaism. Martin Luther was not the only one, almost every one of the Reformers and Church Fathers despised Judaism.

If we're talking about the Judaism that rejects Christ, well should it be rejected.