Jerusalem the capital of Israel?

Thread starter #41

gordon 2

Senior Member
As in most cases of pejoratives, context matters; but I think the generalized answer is, yes; although I don't think it originated as one (research required).
I was not aware that Zionist was pejorative. I thought it was simply as calling a rose a rose. Lots of Christians are Zionist knowingly and unknowingly. Some Christian groups are more Zionist than others. It is just a fact. I also suspect that different degrees of Zionist ideals exist in Israel as some are not happy with their original homeland they would take away the homeland of other peoples and make it their own because according to them Israel should have the borders as per the land mass of the Israel in scripture--which I understand was not the intent of the Balfour Declaration.
 
Last edited:
I was not aware that Zionist was pejorative. I thought it was simply as calling a rose a rose. Lots of Christians are Zionist knowingly and unknowingly. Some Christian groups are more Zionist than others. It is just a fact. I also suspect that different degrees of Zionist ideals exist in Israel as some are not happy with their original homeland they would take away the homeland of other peoples and make it their own because according to them Israel should have the borders as per the land mass of the Israel in scripture--which I understand was not the intent of the Balfour Declaration.
I'm sure there are varying degrees within the "Replacement Theology" realm as well. Supersessionism, Covenant Theology if you prefer. The word supersessionism comes from the English verb to supersede, from the Latin verb sedeo, sedere, sedi, sessum, "to sit",plus super, "upon". It thus signifies one thing being REPLACED or supplanted by another. I too have trouble remembering what is pejorative. Like Hummer suggests, it's how it is used. Maybe even in the tone of our words.

One could go back that Israel as a nation never was the Israel God chose. Many of the Reformed persuasion hold this view siting that God never changes. Yet many others view some type of change or dispensation of something happening that allowed the Gentile to be grafted into physical or spiritual Israel. Most just view it more as the Church instead of physical Israel that they were grafted into. To many the Commonwealth of Israel that they were strangers to as Gentiles was not the physical nation of Israel.

Yet they believed something happened that created a replacement theology or fulfillment theology. They admit there was a change. This is how they feel about the Mystery that was revealed to Paul. Paul does remind us not to brag about the grafting to the point some see it as a replacement or super-session.

In other views True Israel has always been spiritual Israel and there never was a favored nation that Abraham fathered and that Jesus was born a part of.
Man made it out to be this Jewish thing that God never saw or had. I guess it would be hard to call that belief "Replacement" as nothing never changed.

Does admitting to a change make one a Dispensationalists? How many changes or time periods does one have to believe in make one a Dispensationalist?
We could even add the time some believe the Old and New overlapped. Some also believe there are no more periods in time. That it is finished. Me personally believe there will be at least one more time period. Maybe two.
 
Last edited:
I was not aware that Zionist was pejorative. I thought it was simply as calling a rose a rose. Lots of Christians are Zionist knowingly and unknowingly. Some Christian groups are more Zionist than others. It is just a fact. I also suspect that different degrees of Zionist ideals exist in Israel as some are not happy with their original homeland they would take away the homeland of other peoples and make it their own because according to them Israel should have the borders as per the land mass of the Israel in scripture--which I understand was not the intent of the Balfour Declaration.
I felt that Art had somewhat directed his question in my general direction because the word (pejorative) was in my post, and if you follow my link you will find it used extensively in that thread. So I gave my opinion in what I hoped was a wishy-washy enough fashion to indicate that it was an opinion.

I do think that it is often used in a pejorative fashion today. That being accusatively or derogatorily in the context of the statement.

Unlike purely pejorative terms, which are usually initiated by someone opposed to an idea or group as an overly simplified misrepresentation, Zionist was, I believe, first used about 120 yrs. ago as a self-description. I can't say that I recall having heard it as a self-description recently; others may have a completely different experience. If I had heard it used often in that way, I'm sure my opinion would be different.
 

Whiteboy

Senior Member
Somebody needs to tell all them decedents of immigrants from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Syria the facts that they are not descended from a so called Palestinian people, so they don't waste so much energy throwing rocks the next few weeks, but I guess it will be the same in the southwest USA 50 years from now. This is a whole lot of to do about nothing. He stated a naturally known fact. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but then again we are dealing with a world of folks who can't tell male from female and even debate those basic, simple facts.
 
I felt that Art had somewhat directed his question in my general direction because the word (pejorative) was in my post, and if you follow my link you will find it used extensively in that thread. So I gave my opinion in what I hoped was a wishy-washy enough fashion to indicate that it was an opinion.

I do think that it is often used in a pejorative fashion today. That being accusatively or derogatorily in the context of the statement.

Unlike purely pejorative terms, which are usually initiated by someone opposed to an idea or group as an overly simplified misrepresentation, Zionist was, I believe, first used about 120 yrs. ago as a self-description. I can't say that I recall having heard it as a self-description recently; others may have a completely different experience. If I had heard it used often in that way, I'm sure my opinion would be different.
You explained yourself well and that's they way I see it too. I think many words that are now perceived as pejorative didn't start out that way. When the opposing team (if you will), use it enough, it can become perjorative just by perception.
 
Some of the posters here have been given really bum info. "Zionist" and Israeli are not necessarily the same thing, but both identify Jews who want to live in their homeland.

The nation of Israel was (reluctantly) recognized by the (then) new United Nations because, while they were dithering with the "Question of relocating European Jews," a bunch of Jews from Europe and the Middle East took control of the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel, displacing almost 100,000 Arabian, Bedouin, Egyptian and Persian refugees from the middle eastern fighting during WWII. The UK had temporary control of the area but were unable to stop the Jews from settling in and setting up their homes. Notably, one of the reasons Jews were so quickly successful was that many of the Jews were born and raised there and offered other Jews temporary housing on their land.

It is also important to recognize that the land now including Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the East Bank was in the late 1940s mostly abandoned. Outside of Jerusalem, about 70,000 Jews, and up to 125,000 ethnic Arab Muslims did live in the the area before WWII, but good figures from after the war are hard to determine. Most of the Arab Muslims who lived there before the Jews took over chose to remain, they and their descendants live in peace as citizens of Israel. It is clear that those who ended up in temporary camps in 1948 and 49 had come to the area no earlier than 1944.

The label "Zionist" was applied to those fighters who argued for complete removal of those 85,000 to 97,000 (Israeli count vs. UN count) refugees who refused to live with Jews. The Zionists lost the argument. The mostly Muslim, intensely anti Jew, refugees were resettled in temporary camps near Gaza and along the East bank of the Jordan river. The camps were only to remain open until the UN removed those people and returned them to their countries of origin. Unsurprisingly, the UN failed, and later blamed Israel for the failure of the UN to send the refugees home.

The refugees own countries REFUSED to accept any of the refugees! Egypt insisted that the Muslims who left Egypt during WWII gave up any right to return when they ran away. Saudi Arabia said their own Bedouin peoples denied that the Bedouins in Israeli camps were actually from Saudi Arabia. The fledgling governments in what we called Iraq and Iran said none of their people were "missing."

In reality the anti Jew dictatorships in Egypt, Syria, Iran and Lebanon, plus the Kingdoms of Jordan and Saudi Arabia expected the refugee camps to bankrupt the new state of Israel, distract the Israelis from national defense, and be a source of spies and terror within the new Jewish state when they had built up enough military power to attack and destroy Israel. That plan almost worked. The refugees are spies and terrorists. The other nations did build up their military and they did attack Israel - three times. But they lost every time.

Amazingly, the fewer than 100,000 unwanted refugees from 1949, all who rejected living in Israel, have by some miracle of Mohammid's 9 year old bride, or by special grace from the Alla of all suicide bombers, become in the 21st century, more than 6,000,000 "Palestinian" natives seeking only to regain their ancient homeland!

Don't believe all the hype, lies and propaganda put out by "haters." I am a Christian from more than 12 generations of Christian Americans. But I also can read history, check facts, discern CensoredCensored, and discriminate between fact and fiction. Israel is NOT some evil empire. They did not "steal" the land from "millions" of natives. The "Palestinians" are not the "original" residents of the land.
 
Interesting read from Georgiabob. In that respect I can see why they aren't Zionist in that they live in unity with others in Israel.
We could say that Israel isn't just a Jewish nation but a nation of many.

Then we have this other definition of Zionism which perhaps labeled by some as Christian Zionism as it relates to how one views Israel from a Biblical perspective.

In other words was the mystery revealed by Paul in that Gentiles were once excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel, having now been adopted into the nourishing Jewish tree root, spiritual or physical?

If physical then Zionism.
 
Thread starter #49

gordon 2

Senior Member
Interesting read from Georgiabob. In that respect I can see why they aren't Zionist in that they live in unity with others in Israel.
We could say that Israel isn't just a Jewish nation but a nation of many.

Then we have this other definition of Zionism which perhaps labeled by some as Christian Zionism as it relates to how one views Israel from a Biblical perspective.

In other words was the mystery revealed by Paul in that Gentiles were once excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel, having now been adopted into the nourishing Jewish tree root, spiritual or physical?

If physical then Zionism.
Good points. I find it very interesting that some Christians today claim Zionism to be christian and some that it can be definitely of the world. As Christians there is perhaps no more better time for judgement as today-- as to the individual's stand, a yes or no on the issue.
 
And some Christians believe Zion will be Independence, Missouri in the good old USA!

Oh well, to each his own. I guess it's hard to not let our religious beliefs carry over into our political beliefs.
I'm not sure my feelings about physical Israel would be the same if my beliefs were not what they are.

Could it be two imaginary groups fighting over the same piece of land?
 
I can see parallels between physical and spiritual Israel in scripture and I can see differences as well.

Gordon mentions individuals. I can see scripture that appears to be about nations and other scripture that appears to be about individuals.
I read scripture where God chooses a remnant and hardens the others. I read of past promises and future promises. Some even based on predestination. Some based on God having mercy on whom he will have mercy.
Even a warning that God's decisions are unfathomable to us.

Personally the way I see Romans 9-11, is that if God can harden a whole nation as part of a way to make his plan come about, then he can soften a whole nation after the fullness of Gentiles has come in. That's just the way I see it. Again to each his own.

Does this mean that the physical Israel in the middle east is the one hardened and will later be softened? I don't know. Does God need my help softening physical Israel? I don't think so. So wherever this Israel is, when the time comes, God will gather the one's he hardened and soften their hearts as in Romans 11.

Perhaps this Zion will be in Independence, Missouri.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #52

gordon 2

Senior Member
I can see parallels between physical and spiritual Israel in scripture and I can see differences as well.

Gordon mentions individuals. I can see scripture that appears to be about nations and other scripture that appears to be about individuals.
I read scripture where God chooses a remnant and hardens the others. I read of past promises and future promises. Some even based on predestination. Some based on God having mercy on whom he will have mercy.
Even a warning that God's decisions are unfathomable to us.

Personally the way I see Romans 9-11, is that if God can harden a whole nation as part of a way to make his plan come about, then he can soften a whole nation after the fullness of Gentiles has come in. That's just the way I see it. Again to each his own.

Does this mean that the physical Israel in the middle east is the one hardened and will later be softened? I don't know. Does God need my help softening physical Israel? I don't think so. So wherever this Israel is, when the time comes, God will gather the one's he hardened and soften their hearts as in Romans 11.

Perhaps this Zion will be in Independence, Missouri.
Hardening. Art, let me be candid. When God directed the Plymouth Rock folk to Cross the ocean from Europe... it was most likely the germ of a hardening.
If you assess the activities of that people they were hardened from the get go and their spawn has vibrant echo in their history in North America and it continues today... And I don't think the process is anywhere where God deems it yet where will have most effect.

I say this in Christ, or as a Christian. I can't wait as you claim... a softening.
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
A whole nation wasn't hardened, a remnant was saved. And that remnant was the church of God, the Same church of God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob belonged to.
Christianity is the continuation of that church. Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.
 
Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.
how do you comment on a statement like this ?

the religion that is the sole basis for the religion you say that you practice, and you claim it is a made up religion.

Why do you claim any religion at all? You would be more logical if you claimed to be agnostic or athiest
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
how do you comment on a statement like this ?

the religion that is the sole basis for the religion you say that you practice, and you claim it is a made up religion.

Why do you claim any religion at all? You would be more logical if you claimed to be agnostic or athiest
Judaism today only exists as a false religion made up after the temple was destroyed.

The Apostles preached the Gospel. Those that denied faced the wrath of God, those Jew's that accepted continued on the Church of God . The Jew's that rejected Christ are Apostates.

Why in the world would you claim I should be agnostic or atheist when I point out that Christianity is the only true religion? And the Religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Didn't Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob look for the Coming of the Messiah? Well that's happened, and we continue on as the true church of God.
 
A whole nation wasn't hardened, a remnant was saved. And that remnant was the church of God, the Same church of God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob belonged to.
Christianity is the continuation of that church. Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.
You are correct a remnant was chosen and the rest were hardened. What role did Israel or the Jews if you will play in God's plan?
 
to claim that judaism is a made up religion is just crazy. I know you think that every thing ended in 70AD, but the jews continued in the religion that they were taught from Abraham on down.

Can you tell me what about the jewish religion caused it to be "made up" after the Messiah came? Was it a "made up" religion before Messiah came on the scene? What about while he was growing up? The first 30 years he was living here? Was it a "made up" religion during that time?


Yes, I would agree that the path to God has changed since Christ died and rose again, but surely you will agree that up until that time, the jews followed the religion and practices that were ordained by God for them to follow?
 
A whole nation wasn't hardened, a remnant was saved. And that remnant was the church of God, the Same church of God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob belonged to.
Christianity is the continuation of that church. Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.
Please explain the remnant chosen from Israel is the Church.

Romans 10:21
But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."
(Is Israel the Church yet? Oh wait you said the Remnant was the Church.)

Romans 11:1-2
I ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says about Elijah, how he appealed to God against Israel:
(In what capacity/relationship did God foreknow Israel?)
(Still not the Church yet, we must wait for the remnant.)

Romans 11:5-6
5In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.
(Finally a remnant was chosen from physical Israel)
(OK, I'll go along with you and say this is the beginning of the Church. They were chosen or elected by grace. That's they same way it works today, right?)

Romans 11:7-8
What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”

(The Church was elected out of Israel by grace and not of works. The rest of Israel was hardened by being given a spirit of stupor. Eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear.)

And if we quit reading Romans 11 at that point, that is the end of physical Israel. The end of the promises made to the patriarchs. The Gentiles never getting a chance to the promises of the Commonwealth of Israel. The Gentiles never getting a chance to be grafted in to the tree of Israel.
Only a remnant of Jews is left which becomes the Church if we quit reading Romans 11 at that point Israel is never made jealous by the salvation granted to the Gentiles.
 
Last edited:
I must say the remnant elected by grace from national Israel becoming the Church is way more believable than the Church replacing Israel.
It still doesn't answer God's reconciliation with the Israel that God foreknew. It doesn't explain the rest of Romans 11, the trespasses by the hardened Israel that allowed the Gentiles salvation to make the hardened Israel jealous. It doesn't explain the promises to the patriarchs. That the promises are still promises. That after the full number of Gentiles comes in, all Israel will be saved. The rest of them. Those hardened by God. The ones God blinded. The ones that may one day be "elected" or "chosen" by grace and not by works.
I hope everyone realizes this is how salvation is granted. God elects by grace. God also has the ability to harden. If I was one that God foreknew, I could live a life of sin and then be chosen for salvation later. God foreknew Israel.

When I read Romans 9-11, I see promises more than proof.
 
Last edited:
Top