King of the North and King of the South.

[Athanasius]

you are correct.  however the truth appears to be what one believes so if all the world beileves nyc in babylon then when nyc is destryed in the near future then the world will think it is babylon.  just as satan wants......

'The world' does not and is not going to believe NYC is Babylon.

Hold up, wait a minute, why is NYC going to be destroyed in the near future?

[RabbiKnife]

The remake of Sex and the City: Part Deux.

Mic drop.

God is, after all, just, nu?

[RandyPNW]

...I'm hoping the US does not commit to any form of European Anti-Semitism or Anti-Christianity, which is what I think the 4th Beast represents.

If the question were posed in the 1930s upon hearing of Hitler's genocide and the US' deportation or refusal to let Jews into the country, what would you have thought then? Never mind the US' treatment at the time of Japanese Americans, those who are same-sex attracted, secret government experimentation on the poor and minority groups, etc.? These things taken together seem very much to be anti-Christian if by anti-Christian we mean contrary to the teaching of Christ.

So why not go all the way with your view? It wouldn't be hard to argue that the US already fits the description.

I hesitate to place a definitive definition on an ancient prophecy because I could be wrong. I suggest that it is logical to assume that *all* of European Civilization fits into the category of the "4th Beast" in some ways.

It's important, I feel, to recognize that 2 streams of thought are involved in this, and both are true.

1) Jesus said the political Kingdom of God on earth would be taken from Israel and given to others. I believe the "others" were the Roman Kingdom. So this particular stream is evangelical, and amounts to a repeat among Gentile nations the same thing that had already taken place with Israel.

2) The other stream of thought involves the OT notion that the world is Israel's enemies. And that doesn't change even with the Christianization of the Roman Empire. Rome still remained corrupt, and Rome still fell.

Nonetheless, Roman Civilization continued through Britain and Gaul, and then through Germany in the West. In the East it continued for a thousand years in the Byzantine Empire. The fall of both Eastern and Western sections of the original Roman Empire does not preclude the continuity of what I call "Roman Civilization." I equate Roman Civilization with "European Civilization." And yes, that would include America, as well as countries formerly belonging to the Soviet Empire.

Since I don't know exactly how this 4th Beast will shape out, I can only rely on Daniel's account and on the account in Revelation, which says that this will be 10 nations and 7 kings. Since this comes from Dan 2 and the two "feet" of the great image, I assume that the two feet represent the Eastern and Western sections of the Roman Empire. This means we should probably include both Russia and the U.S.

As patriotic as I am, and as much as I love the US, I have little trouble criticizing it, and I have for decades. A long time ago, while studying these things, I realized there was a difference between biblical standards and democratic standards. Studying the history of philosophy in Europe, as opposed to Christian theology, one can easily see that liberal thought is not Christian thought.

I realized I had been raised up with the typical liberal education and taught to believe that "many gods" is as "godly" as belief in "one God." That is the democratic standard, that all religions should be accepted as equal. And this is not Christian.

So I'm not surprised in the least that my country has engaged in lots of ungodly activities. And we're inundated by a lot of this liberal philosophy now going to seed. It's revealing its roots in an actual hostility to Christianity. As Voltaire referred to Christianity as "the accursed thing," so now we have celebrities cursing the "Christian Right."

[Fenris]

The other stream of thought involves the OT notion that the world is Israel's enemies.

What makes you say this?

[RandyPNW]

The other stream of thought involves the OT notion that the world is Israel's enemies.

What makes you say this?

The confusion may be between the language used in the Jewish Scriptures and NT language. In the NT Scriptures the "world" describes the general state of the world at large. Some of it may sometimes turn to goodness, but there is always the inclination towards the evil and oppression of the innocent, as well as persecution of the righteous.

The "world," therefore, is opposed to what God has promised to Israel, to Christianity, and to the peoples of the world. By that I mean that nations, as they turn to or remain in violence will ultimately oppose things God has promised His people.

The UN at first accepted the State of Israel in 1948, although this was done with reservations, due to the complaints of the Palestinians. But there has been a regular condemnation of Israel from within the UN and a virtual consensus on this condemnation of "Jewish settlement and expansion."

It is really like saying, "We agree you should live, but reject an environment in which you can practice your own religion--you must compromise with a majority of Moslems until you are democratically delegitimized or overtaken by the Muslim world."

Compare this modern reality for this Jewish People in Israel with the description of the pagan world in the Jewish Scriptures. It is, I think, the same.

[Fenris]

The "world," therefore, is opposed to what God has promised to Israel, to Christianity, and to the peoples of the world. By that I mean that nations, as they turn to or remain in violence will ultimately oppose things God has promised His people.

It's fine if you wish to believe this, but you claim it's an "OT notion" and I'm aware of nothing of the sort.

It is really like saying, "We agree you should live, but reject an environment in which you can practice your own religion--you must compromise with a majority of Moslems until you are democratically delegitimized or overtaken by the Muslim world."

This is simply another way of saying "antisemitism", and that's fine. But that's also a choice that people make, to choose hate over love (or at least, coexistence). It doesn't have to be this way. 

Compare this modern reality for this Jewish People in Israel with the description of the pagan world in the Jewish Scriptures. It is, I think, the same.

Todays world is very different. Christians are not pagans, and neither are Muslims for that matter.

[RandyPNW]

The "world," therefore, is opposed to what God has promised to Israel, to Christianity, and to the peoples of the world. By that I mean that nations, as they turn to or remain in violence will ultimately oppose things God has promised His people.

It's fine if you wish to believe this, but you claim it's an "OT notion" and I'm aware of nothing of the sort.

Yes, I can see that you don't know the things in the Jewish Bible I'm referring to. Israel was forbidden from intermarrying with foreigners. In NT lingo, that is "the world." It refers to the pagan world that we are not to intermix with. What does Christ have to do with Baal. Do not join yourselves to prostitutes. What do you have in common with idols? This is NT language that is based on the OT concept of separation between God's People and pagan peoples. Some kings suffered shipwreck for allying even with fellow Hebrew kings who were hopelessly compromised with paganism and idolatry.

[ross3421]

you are correct.  however the truth appears to be what one believes so if all the world beileves nyc in babylon then when nyc is destryed in the near future then the world will think it is babylon.  just as satan wants......

'The world' does not and is not going to believe NYC is Babylon.

the unsaved world may there are even many saved believe it too.

Hold up, wait a minute, why is NYC going to be destroyed in the near future?

well nyc is in the world which is made a wilderness

[Athanasius]

the unsaved world may there are even many saved believe it too.

They may? Theology has to account for the world, and this is a theology that doesn't. If you think the unsaved world views or may view, NYC as Babylon, then that's a whole load of justification that just isn't there.

We don't live in a world of 'if the world believes nyc in babylon'. Does it? If it doesn't, it's time to reconsider one's conjecture.

[Fenris]

Yes, I can see that you don't know the things in the Jewish Bible I'm referring to. Israel was forbidden from intermarrying with foreigners. In NT lingo, that is "the world."

I know the Jewish bible very well, thank you very much. Just because Jews aren't permitted to intermarry doesn't mean that we are opposed to the world, or that the world is opposed to us. The Jewish mission is to be "a kingdom of priests," and to whom do priests minister? Lay people. The nations of the world. Our mission is to be in the world and carry out God's laws, and so to transform it into a place of holiness.

[RandyPNW]

Yes, I can see that you don't know the things in the Jewish Bible I'm referring to. Israel was forbidden from intermarrying with foreigners. In NT lingo, that is "the world."

I know the Jewish bible very well, thank you very much.

Snippy, are we? You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do? What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.

But I can understand the defensiveness. I wouldn't like the NT Scriptures played with by Jews either. For that matter, I don't like how liberal Christians play with it! But I'll never accuse them of not knowing it. Many of them know it better than many Evangelical or Conservative Christians do.

Just because Jews aren't permitted to intermarry doesn't mean that we are opposed to the world, or that the world is opposed to us.

On the contrary, if you believe, inherently, that it is dangerous and wrong to intermarry with them, it means precisely that, that they are bad for you. The world is no man's land, an ungodly atmosphere toxic for Jewish men and women. You might be able to do business with them, and even befriend them. But they are not to become business partners or trusted associates--at best, peace partners, if possible.

The Jewish mission is to be "a kingdom of priests," and to whom do priests minister? Lay people. The nations of the world. Our mission is to be in the world and carry out God's laws, and so to transform it into a place of holiness.

I think that's a twist on the concept of priesthood. Yes, Israel is a light to the nations, setting an example of God's word to the world. But a clear line of demarcation was drawn for religious purposes. And that shouldn't be ignored.

If the world does not have the right God and the right religion, then it remains a dangerous field. That's what I'm saying, that those who are your friends today may be your enemies tomorrow. What keeps people on a sane track if not devotion to the one true God?

[Fenris]

You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do?

Sadly, that's actually been my observation, yeah.

What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.

That hasn't been my observation, no.

But I can understand the defensiveness.

I'm not defensive. I simply don't appreciate people acting as though I don't know what's in my own bible. For some reason, many Christians think that Jews don't know what's in our own bible, because if we did we would somehow accept Christianity as being correct. 

I wouldn't like the NT Scriptures played with by Jews either.

I don't tend to "play with" NT scripture. I will quote it verbatim sometimes though.

On the contrary, if you believe, inherently, that it is dangerous and wrong to intermarry with them, it means precisely that, that they are bad for you.

Um yeah, no, that's not why. Thanks for your input though.

The world is no man's land, an ungodly atmosphere toxic for Jewish men and women.

The world is place that Jewish men and women are supposed to enter into and so transform into a Godly place.

You might be able to do business with them, and even befriend them. But they are not to become business partners or trusted associates--at best, peace partners, if possible.

And you know this how? My closest friends are actually not Jews, but I guess I should break off those friendships pronto because some rando on the internet schooled me in Judaism.

I think that's a twist on the concept of priesthood.

Keep these coming. Every line and I see how much less you know about Judaism. Pretty close to zero at this point.

If the world does not have the right God and the right religion, then it remains a dangerous field.

According to who? Judaism was never meant to be a mass religion. The whole world was never meant to be Jewish.

[Athanasius]

Snippy, are we? You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do? What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.

But I can understand the defensiveness.

Let's have a reset on the approach to the conversation in this thread. Fenris isn't being snippy or defensive, and gaslighting isn't cool. Let's pretend we all know what we're talking about, and have good reasons for believing what we believe. There's no need to start arguing who knows what portions of the Bible better.

[RandyPNW]

Snippy, are we? You probably know the NT Scriptures better than many Christians do? What you know from your Bible is the Jewish view of your Bible. It doesn't mean that I, as a Christian, don't know the Jewish Bible from a Christian point of view--I certainly do, and probably know it better than many Jews do.

But I can understand the defensiveness.

Let's have a reset on the approach to the conversation in this thread. Fenris isn't being snippy or defensive, and gaslighting isn't cool. Let's pretend we all know what we're talking about, and have good reasons for believing what we believe. There's no need to start arguing who knows what portions of the Bible better.

Then I don't know how to reply to his responses? He apparently is claiming I'm trying to school him in Judaism, which is patently untrue. I think I should be able to respond to that false charge, which is why I'm doing it here while trying to respect your "rules."

Jews and Christians look at the same Bible in a very different way. And I find that interesting.

That was my whole point, that some in each of our religions follow the Jewish interpretation or the Christian interpretation without any regard for what is really said in the Scriptures. And that's because they are not very knowledgeable of the Scriptures.

Others, who know the Scriptures, both Jew and Christian, read the same Scriptures and continue to insert their own interpretation is the proper view. Though they actually know the Scriptures well, this does not definitively determine what interpretation should be applied to the same Scriptures.

Jews claim that since it is *their Scriptures* that their interpretation holds more weight than the Christian view. They fail to recognize that many Jews have converted to Christianity and that Christianity is itself produced by Jews who became Christians, ie the apostles.

But if this kind of dialogue is endangering civility, then I'll be only too happy to let it go here and now, and turn to a specific portion of Scripture. I would only suggest that Fenris' claim that we as Christians interpret the Bible wrong because it is a "Jewish Bible" lacks credibility.

[RandyPNW]

I'm not defensive. I simply don't appreciate people acting as though I don't know what's in my own bible. For some reason, many Christians think that Jews don't know what's in our own bible, because if we did we would somehow accept Christianity as being correct. 

I'm going to try to "reset" the tone of this conversation, because I agree with the admin--it's getting overheated. Let me just reassure you that I don't believe I know the Jewish version of the Bible well. I don't believe I know that near as well as you do.

I know the Scriptures, OT and NT, pretty well, though, and do have a different interpretation than Jews do. I don't think it's ignorance on anybody's part necessarily. The same Scriptures can be read by educated people and get different interpretations.

But let's turn the corner on any argument about who knows what better, okay? That was never my intention regardless. I don't believe the Jewish view lacks scholarship or credibility, as a legitimate religious alternative to the Christian version. I just disagree based on my own experience with God.

On the contrary, if you believe, inherently, that it is dangerous and wrong to intermarry with them, it means precisely that, that they are bad for you.

Um yeah, no, that's not why. Thanks for your input though.

I want to assure you that I'm here suggesting what the ideal Jewish interpretation "should be," based on my Christian understanding. I'm not telling you what "Jews believe" about this!

I'm a "holiness" Christian--there are more ecumenical Christian brands. As a holiness Christian I based my relationship with the non-Christian world on the same Scriptures that you use and perhaps interpret differently. I've been reading out of Deuteronomy--the 1st 10 chapters or so--about the need to separate from the pagans, ie not to intermarry with them, not to adopt their pagan ways, etc. And it is on that basis that I derive my own need not to over-fraternize with non-Christians in terms of marriage, business, etc.

A good example of compromise in the "Jewish Bible" is the story of Johoshaphat (1 Kings 22) who was a good king, faithful to God. The problem is, he carried "brotherhood" too far when he joined forces with the King of Israel in the north, who was compromised by paganism  (2 Chron 20.37).

The world is no man's land, an ungodly atmosphere toxic for Jewish men and women.

The world is place that Jewish men and women are supposed to enter into and so transform into a Godly place.

As a Christian I believe, as you do, that moral people living under the laws of God should be a witness to the world, to hopefully change some of them. I do not believe all will change, even though all can change.

As such, I am not an isolationist Christian--just separated for the purpose of holiness, not wanting to agree with the message ungodly people bring. The more moral someone in the pagan world is, the easier it is to get close to him or her. But I strongly believe in peace agreements, or truces, which should be the goal of all groups, no matter what their religion is.

You might be able to do business with them, and even befriend them. But they are not to become business partners or trusted associates--at best, peace partners, if possible.

And you know this how? My closest friends are actually not Jews, but I guess I should break off those friendships pronto because some rando on the internet schooled me in Judaism.

No, I do appreciate your friendship with Christians, including me, if I haven't thrown you too far off already? I also have friends from work, from places I go, from business transactions, etc. But I would distinguish this from more personal associations.

I think that's a twist on the concept of priesthood.

Keep these coming. Every line and I see how much less you know about Judaism. Pretty close to zero at this point.

I would repeat--I don't wish to suggest I'm describing "Judaism," as you know it. I'm describing how I, as a Christian, believe that original Judaism was in ancient times, or how I think it should've been practiced. Do you understand the difference?