prince David (counterfeit) is the little horn,second beast rev 13

[ross3421]

so how did i come to this.....

1. first one needs to understand tjat satan is a counterfeit so he replicate all things concerning the second coming.  hrnce both gods and satans kingdom has 4 beasts tthe 4 in gods kingdom are abraham issac jacob and david.   all will control 1/4 of the land aroud the city in eternity with david in charge of all of themn.

2. the rev 13 is the 4th beast in satans kingdom being the counterfeit of david

now the overcomers of the church are not present as they are killed off by plaques then th remainder by battle.

thus the chuch belivers are not upon the earth for the last 3.5 years, tha mark ect..........rev 12 and betond are more to do with israel.



i will add more info later whem more time permits.  so we will not be on earth when the second beast 666 is on the earth only unbelivers and israel

[RandyPNW]

I find that interesting not because I 100% agree with it, but because it allows me to improve my position somewhat. Of course, this is theoretical, because the future is hard to know with any precision.

I'm not Pretrib, so I don't accept that the international Church is removed from the earth during the last 3.5 years of the age. But I do agree that the vast majority of Christians will be gone by that time from other causes. As Christians become less and less popular with the waning of Christian civilization, there will be relatively few who will be raptured alive at the end of the age.

Think of Elijah who was raptured to heaven. He was only one person in Israel who went missing. Only a few missed him.

Similarly, at the end of the age there will be relatively few Christians among the nations, I think. And when Christ comes back, those few he takes up to heaven will hardly be missed!

Israel is the template for all this. It was the nation who developed the pattern that we now see among all Christian nations. The baton was passed from Israel to the Roman Empire--think: "the Kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to a nation worthy of it."

So just as Israel was worthy at one time, so in the present age many European nations have been worthy in the past. But as Israel fell away, so now many Christian nations are turning to apostasy.

And so, just like the multitudes initially followed Jesus and then turned away, learning how unpopular the cross was, so now the multitudes of Christians in Christian nations have now been turning away from Christianity due to its unpopularity in the world. And I do think the vast numbers of Christians are dwindling in our time.

Yes, many are Christian in name only, just as in Jesus' time, Jews were God's Chosen in name only.  What we're seeing is a fulfillment, I think, of what Jesus said: "when the Son of Man comes will he find faith on the earth?"

What this means to me is that even though we're seeing the beginning of the end of Christian civilization in the present age, there are still way too many Christians for things to go completely south yet. There is still room for ministry.

And we should encourage one another to remain faithful as we see many fall away due to the unpopularity of the message of the cross. When the Rapture of the Church finally takes place at Christ's 2nd Coming, there will likely be relatively few Christians noticed who are "missing."

When Christ comes, the nations, including Israel, will show fear at the coming of the Son of Man in judgment from heaven. They will be ashamed of their ways, and will suffer great remorse for their hardness of hearts.

But Christ's Coming will open up the door for renewal in the world, both for Israel and for the nations. Christian Civilization will, I think, be restarted.

[Fenris]

Israel is the template for all this. It was the nation who developed the pattern that we now see among all Christian nations. The baton was passed from Israel to the Roman Empire--think: "the Kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to a nation worthy of it."

I don't have any opinion on the rest of this (and really, it's not my business) but this statement is bizarre. "the Kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to a nation worthy of it." Pagan, barbaric, dictatorial Rome, (whose soldiers actually killed Jesus, not the Jews) was somehow more "worthy" than Israel? Israel was flawed, sure, but still monotheistic, actually kept the bible's laws (unlike the Greeks and Romans, who openly mocked them) and at least attempted to build a free and open society. In what way was Rome "worthy"?

[RandyPNW]

Israel is the template for all this. It was the nation who developed the pattern that we now see among all Christian nations. The baton was passed from Israel to the Roman Empire--think: "the Kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to a nation worthy of it."

I don't have any opinion on the rest of this (and really, it's not my business) but this statement is bizarre. "the Kingdom will be taken from Israel and given to a nation worthy of it." Pagan, barbaric, dictatorial Rome, (whose soldiers actually killed Jesus, not the Jews) was somehow more "worthy" than Israel? Israel was flawed, sure, but still monotheistic, actually kept the bible's laws (unlike the Greeks and Romans, who openly mocked them) and at least attempted to build a free and open society. In what way was Rome "worthy"?

Yea, I know. The Romans were the worst of the worst, and yet were considered "worthy" to receive the Gospel of the Kingdom, in the estimation of Jesus. Obviously, that was due to their ignorance, since the Gospel, according to Jesus, was being offered even to "dogs."

So this kind of "worthiness" speaks of potential. After all, Israel also lacked certain "qualities" as they developed into a nation of God. Before they became largely monotheistic, they continued for many years to be a polytheistic nation, or at least compromised with paganism.

We might say that Israel, even after having become as despicable as the pagans, were viewed by God to be worthy of restoration following the Babylonian Captivity. This isn't as much a "worthiness" in terms of character, but more, an eligibility, based on  ignorance.

As Israel's "ignorance" waned, and they produced a new breed completely indifferent to their sins, it became time to give a chance to those who had not yet been given a chance. And then they would go through the same cycle as Israel, with a strong start, but ending by being taken over by compromisers.

[Fenris]

So this kind of "worthiness" speaks of potential.

What "potential"? That centuries later, they would adopt a flawed version of Christianity? (According to Protestantism). That they would oppress and discriminate against religious minorities who didn't adopt it? That they would end up authorizing the Crusades and the Inquisition? Selling indulgences so that the wealthy could sin freely? This the same Rome we're talking about?

I think a much better biblical analogue for Rome would be Assyria "The rod of God's anger" (Is 10) or Babylon, who served much the same purpose. They were completely wicked nations by any standard, certainly far worse than Israel, and were only being used by God to punish Israel- because they were available and willing. No nonsense about them being passed "a baton" or whatever.

We might say that Israel, even after having become as despicable as the pagans

No place does the bible say this. The opposite, when Elijah the prophet slanders Israel in this very manner (1 Kings 19), God takes his mission away and gives it to Elisha instead.

God punishes Israel for a different reason. Jews are held to a higher standard because we know better. See Amos 3:2 "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins."

[RandyPNW]

So this kind of "worthiness" speaks of potential.

What "potential"? That centuries later, they would adopt a flawed version of Christianity? (According to Protestantism). That they would oppress and discriminate against religious minorities who didn't adopt it? That they would end up authorizing the Crusades and the Inquisition? Selling indulgences so that the wealthy could sin freely? This the same Rome we're talking about?

Were the Christian nations of Europe completely bad? Did the fact there was discrimination against minorities, persecution of those with good conscience, Crusades, and Inquisitions make the Christians nations as despicable as other nations that were not Christian? Yes and no, I would say.

The problem for nations with godly standards is that there are always those within those nations who do not conform to the standard. And ultimately, when those who do have standards succumb to the pressures and temptations of sin, those nations are as bad as any pagan nations. The same was certainly true of Israel.

I think a much better biblical analogue for Rome would be Assyria "The rod of God's anger" (Is 10) or Babylon, who served much the same purpose. They were completely wicked nations by any standard, certainly far worse than Israel, and were only being used by God to punish Israel- because they were available and willing. No nonsense about them being passed "a baton" or whatever.

See above. But to tear down the Christian standard just because it wasn't followed is as bad as anyone tearing down Israel's standards when they weren't followed! I trust you are not tearing down the Christian standard, just as I'm not tearing down the standard of the Law?

We might say that Israel, even after having become as despicable as the pagans

No place does the bible say this. The opposite, when Elijah the prophet slanders Israel in this very manner (1 Kings 19), God takes his mission away and gives it to Elisha instead.

God punishes Israel for a different reason. Jews are held to a higher standard because we know better. See Amos 3:2 "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins."

The Bible describes Israel as having capitulated to the temptations and pressures of the pagan nations around them. This is why, God explained, that they were being judged.

Yes, it does not mean that all Israel is bad, nor that they are bad at all times. It just means that nations are mixed with good and bad people, and that the bad people always negatively influence the good.

And that's why I suggest Israel has been the model for Christian nations of European extraction. The same pattern has been followed.

[Fenris]

Were the Christian nations of Europe completely bad?

It wasn't "Europe" that destroyed the temple, killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and exiled or enslaved millions of others in the first century. It was Rome.

ultimately, when those who do have standards succumb to the pressures and temptations of sin, those nations are as bad as any pagan nations.

I have a couple of problems with this statement. First is that nations aren't and shouldn't be judged by their worst members. I'll actually make an exception for Israel on account of God making us responsible for one another in a way that other nations are not. The warnings in Lev 26 and Deut 28 are communal in nature; but they don't apply to other nations. My second issue is that just because a nation falls short of perfection doesn't mean that they're as bad as pagans.

See above. But to tear down the Christian standard

I'm not tearing down any Christian standard. I'm tearing down Rome as some supposed moral or spiritual successor to Israel because they were actually far worse.

The Bible describes Israel as having capitulated to the temptations and pressures of the pagan nations around them. This is why, God explained, that they were being judged.

snip

And that's why I suggest Israel has been the model for Christian nations of European extraction. The same pattern has been followed.

OK, but again, Rome destroyed Israel, not "Christian Europe." And whatever biblical standards you want to apply to national Israel, nations in Europe in general has behaved far worse, particularly where Jews were concerned. The western exception is of course the United States, of whom the founders compared to Israel; Abraham Lincoln referred to America as the "almost chosen people". But then, America had no role in the destruction of Israel in the first century.

[RandyPNW]

It wasn't "Europe" that destroyed the temple, killed hundreds of thousands of Jews, and exiled or enslaved millions of others in the first century. It was Rome.

Remember that I was talking about being "worthy" of redemption. The Jews had long known about God's willingness to redeem people. The Romans had never heard such a thing, but when learning about it converted to the Christian standard.

Nobody is saying the Roman Empire completely converted into a good people. I'm saying that it evolved into European Christianity with those same higher standards.

But still, there are always those who fail to live by those standards, who pervert those standards, and who impact the country. The resulting decline of Western Civilization is parallel with the decline of Israel's ancient civilization.

It started with high standards and some success, and ended with divine judgment. The West today is experiencing the same judgment.

ultimately, when those who do have standards succumb to the pressures and temptations of sin, those nations are as bad as any pagan nations.

I have a couple of problems with this statement. First is that nations aren't and shouldn't be judged by their worst members.

Nor did I suggest this! I went on to explain that the few who resist the higher standards ultimately become the "leaven that leavens the whole lump."

I'll actually make an exception for Israel on account of God making us responsible for one another in a way that other nations are not. The warnings in Lev 26 and Deut 28 are communal in nature; but they don't apply to other nations. My second issue is that just because a nation falls short of perfection doesn't mean that they're as bad as pagans.

Christians believe that Israel became our Old Testament example for Christian nations. I agree that what was written in the Jewish Scriptures were largely for them alone, with a few exceptions.

1 Cor 10.11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.

The Jewish Scriptures plainly suggested that Israel did become, at times, as bad as pagans, and certainly more liable to be judged, since they were given to know better.

OK, but again, Rome destroyed Israel, not "Christian Europe." And whatever biblical standards you want to apply to national Israel, nations in Europe in general has behaved far worse, particularly where Jews were concerned. The western exception is of course the United States, of whom the founders compared to Israel; Abraham Lincoln referred to America as the "almost chosen people". But then, America had no role in the destruction of Israel in the first century.

The US has become an ally of Israel, with many Jews living here. The influence of Jews has helped to shape US policy towards the Jews and towards Israel. However, I believe it is Christian influence in the US, separated from the older churches of Europe, who have helped prevent the rise of anti-Semitism here. As Christianity wanes in the US anti-Semitism is sure to rise again. And it already has.

My point was that Israel had already known God, and still turned despicably wicked. That nation killed the symbol of future Christianity, namely Christ himself. Certainly this was not an act of all Jews, although the nation largely rejected Christ's teachings, just as they had rejected the Law of Moses. They declared him an imposter and an impossible fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

Is this religious decision by the masses and by the leaders in Israel evidence of complete corruption? No more so than the persecution of Jews by Christian nations meant that they had fallen into irredeemable behavior.

Again, Israel had heard about God, and Rome had not. All men have worth before God, and as such are worthy to hear. Those who have rejected their message from God are no longer worthy to hear. The prophets for them go silent.

Israel's time will come again. And Christianity, though falling away, will also rise again. The "worthiness" of the Roman Empire consists not in their good behavior at the time, but on their value in the eyes of God. And the resulting Christian civilization proves to me that God was right in this assessment.

[Fenris]

Remember that I was talking about being "worthy" of redemption. The Jews had long known about God's willingness to redeem people. The Romans had never heard such a thing, but when learning about it converted to the Christian standard.

So the Romans had to kill hundreds of thousands and enslave millions to "learn" about God? Yeah, I'm not seeing that, sorry.

Nobody is saying the Roman Empire completely converted into a good people. I'm saying that it evolved into European Christianity with those same higher standards.

Maybe, but this has nothing to do with Rome destroying Judea or passing a baton or however you referred to it.

But still, there are always those who fail to live by those standards, who pervert those standards, and who impact the country. The resulting decline of Western Civilization is parallel with the decline of Israel's ancient civilization.

Framing it this way is historically strange. Western Civ isn't any more or less moral now than 100 years ago. I mean, the Nazis shoved millions of people into gas chambers and the rest of Europe didn't really care much one way or the other and didn't bother getting involved until they themselves were attacked. And you think it's in decline now? When was this golden age of Western Civ when everyone was moral and lived Godly lives?

Nor did I suggest this! I went on to explain that the few who resist the higher standards ultimately become the "leaven that leavens the whole lump."

I don't know what this means or what biblical verses you are sourcing, if any.

Christians believe that Israel became our Old Testament example for Christian nations. I agree that what was written in the Jewish Scriptures were largely for them alone, with a few exceptions.

Ah, on this we can agree.

The Jewish Scriptures plainly suggested that Israel did become, at times, as bad as pagans,

I don't agree, and using Elijah as an example, I think this is dangerous to suggest.

The US has become an ally of Israel, with many Jews living here. The influence of Jews has helped to shape US policy towards the Jews and towards Israel.

This is untrue and vaguely antisemitic to suggest. American Evangelicals support Israel by the tens of millions because of their understanding of the bible, not because of some Jewish plot that alters their thinking. The founders saw America as Israel on account of their belief that America, like Israel, was chosen for a special and divine mission, not because they interacted with American Jews who didn't even exist at the time.

However, I believe it is Christian influence in the US, separated from the older churches of Europe, who have helped prevent the rise of anti-Semitism here. As Christianity wanes in the US anti-Semitism is sure to rise again.

I do think there is a big difference between American Christians and European Christians.

My point was that Israel had already known God, and still turned despicably wicked.

Again, this is a bad characterization. Israel was not "despicably wicked." They were far more moral than any of their neighbors at the time, and most certainly Rome. There's a giant gap between "Israel not living up to God's expectation" and "Israel is despicably wicked".

That nation killed the symbol of future Christianity, namely Christ himself.

No, that was Rome. Who went on to kill hundreds of thousands of other Jews in the first century.

Certainly this was not an act of all Jews, although the nation largely rejected Christ's teachings,

The nation largely had probably never heard of him. There were some 8 million Jews in the world at that time. If Jesus in his 3 year or so ministry spoke to 50,000 people that would be a lot. That means 99% of the Jews in the world had never heard him

just as they had rejected the Law of Moses.

The Jews didn't reject God's laws as carried down in the bible. They canonized it. Made it holy writ. And died trying to teach it and carry it out, again by the Romans (amongst others).

They declared him an imposter and an impossible fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.

They probably saw him as a failed messiah, one of many in the first century.

Is this religious decision by the masses and by the leaders in Israel evidence of complete corruption? No more so than the persecution of Jews by Christian nations meant that they had fallen into irredeemable behavior.

Again this is a bizarre comparison. "Jews didn't accept Jesus" is the same to you as "Jews persecuted by Christian nations for 20 centuries, culminating in genocide".

Again, Israel had heard about God, and Rome had not.

This isn't even true. There were  many Jewish converts in Rome during the first century, so much so that Roman writers complained about it.

The "worthiness" of the Roman Empire consists not in their good behavior at the time, but on their value in the eyes of God. And the resulting Christian civilization proves to me that God was right in this assessment.

The fact that Jews are a tiny people and yet have made such an impact, to this say, proves something to me as well .

[RandyPNW]

So the Romans had to kill hundreds of thousands and enslave millions to "learn" about God? Yeah, I'm not seeing that, sorry.

I don't see it either because I didn't say that. I'm saying that when God sees people live lives in ignorance of Him, whether they sin or not, He wants to enlighten them with His laws. After Israel as a nation failed largely to adhere to their Law, it was time for the Romans to have a shot at it.

It is the Law that makes people righteous--not their ethnicity, not their race. Israel was better because they were given the Law. And over time, people get sloppy, and let the wicked among them take over and affect the masses. All people should be given the opportunity to start with God's laws.

Framing it this way is historically strange. Western Civ isn't any more or less moral now than 100 years ago. I mean, the Nazis shoved millions of people into gas chambers and the rest of Europe didn't really care much one way or the other and didn't bother getting involved until they themselves were attacked. And you think it's in decline now? When was this golden age of Western Civ when everyone was moral and lived Godly lives?

Nations do, I believe, rise and fall. You can look at better and worse times in the history of all nations. For example, Israel was better in a time before they came under judgment from God. They were worse when God saw them as worse and sent them into captivity. If they were always that bad they would've always been sent away into captivity.

What I'm saying about European civilization improving is that once they received the Gospel of Christ and the template of Christ's life they were able to apply those standards in society. And  the blessing that fell upon such a society encouraged some of them to become Christians and to at least try to impose moral standards throughout the society, high and low. Many became genuine Christians and did many charitable acts.

Nor did I suggest this! I went on to explain that the few who resist the higher standards ultimately become the "leaven that leavens the whole lump."

I don't know what this means or what biblical verses you are sourcing, if any.

Yes, under the Law things like leprosy and mold spread which indicated to me that unclean things were to be avoided, just as pagan people were to be avoided. Over time one can see where Christians in Europe began to practice tolerance and Latitudinarianism, which led to theological liberalism. Ultimately, this leads to unclean practices, making entire societies unclean. This is progressive, indicating things are not static. People are not always bad, and not always good. There is a constant evolution going on.

The Jewish Scriptures plainly suggested that Israel did become, at times, as bad as pagans,

I don't agree, and using Elijah as an example, I think this is dangerous to suggest.

The fact Baal worship was prevalent in Israel makes my point for me! The fact there is sometimes a corrective indicates that there was a problem--a serious problem! And during the time of Jeremiah God said Israel had reached a stage where He would no longer forgive them--they had gone so far that He would no longer repent of bringing judgment upon them. The Babylonian judgment was a done deal.

The US has become an ally of Israel, with many Jews living here. The influence of Jews has helped to shape US policy towards the Jews and towards Israel.

This is untrue and vaguely antisemitic to suggest.

I'm not even being vaguely anti-Semitic to suggest the truth. Obviously, Jews would incline towards supporting the Jewish state. Read Chaim Potok in "The Chosen." I'm all in favor of that.

Would you say that Blacks support Black causes in Black Lives Matter? If so, is saying that being prejudiced against Blacks?

American Evangelicals support Israel by the tens of millions because of their understanding of the bible, not because of some Jewish plot that alters their thinking.

1) It isn't wrong to alter one's thinking, if one is influencing something for the good.
2) Some Christians are not Dispensationalists who believe in the restoration of Israel. Dispensationalists believe Israel must play a role in biblical prophecy.

But some Christians may support Jews in Israel because of what they saw in the Holocaust. Even bringing that historical event to light is a good way of influencing the world, though it doesn't work except with good people.

The founders saw America as Israel on account of their belief that America, like Israel, was chosen for a special and divine mission, not because they interacted with American Jews who didn't even exist at the time.

The founders were Replacement Theology advocates, who saw the Christian mission as being a successor to what they considered to be Israel's "failed" mission.

I do think there is a big difference between American Christians and European Christians.

I do too. But I see ugly headwinds coming from Europe and influencing America. For example, Biden and the Democrats are moving, as a policy, towards European cooperation. They are intentionally allowing our country to be molded by European standards.

Again, this is a bad characterization. Israel was not "despicably wicked."

Do you even read the Jewish Prophets? I don't mean to be mean, but I've read your Bible all my life and have read numerous times in numerous places where the Prophets described Israel as hopelessly corrupt, and as bad as the pagan nations. That is why God said they were judged through the vehicle of pagan nations, to give them what they deserved!

That nation killed the symbol of future Christianity, namely Christ himself.

No, that was Rome. Who went on to kill hundreds of thousands of other Jews in the first century.

Jews turned against Jesus perhaps because he advocated for submission to Rome, instead of acting as Messiah, who they supposed would free them from Rome. But Jesus focused on whether they *deserved* deliverance, being that they were utterly sinful on the inside, though observant on the outside.

I think the Jewish mob influenced Rome to crucify Jesus. But the Jews, such as Paul, went after Christians in their ranks, considering them reprobates and an evil influence within Judaism. It wasn't just Rome that was hostile to both Jesus and Jewish believers in him.

Again this is a bizarre comparison. "Jews didn't accept Jesus" is the same to you as "Jews persecuted by Christian nations for 20 centuries, culminating in genocide".

Not bizarre from the way Paul, a Jew of the time, saw it. Rejecting Jesus was rejecting the need for repentance. You may think Jews have always been "lily white," but you would have to revise the history.

Again, Israel had heard about God, and Rome had not.

This isn't even true. There were  many Jewish converts in Rome during the first century, so much so that Roman writers complained about it.

There is a difference between just "hearing about a rumor" or even "hearing a philosophical proposition" and actually being approached in love with God's offer to have a relationship with you! Jews have been loved by God from the beginning. Romans didn't have that opportunity until Jewish believers began to take their Gospel of Christ to Rome with the proposition that if they repent they could have eternal fellowship with God.

The fact that Jews are a tiny people and yet have made such an impact, to this say, proves something to me as well .

If I were you, I would be immensely proud of the accomplishments of the Jewish People. But it was the Law of God that made the difference. Let other nations have their chance. That's what happened in the time of Jesus. Believers in Jesus were believers in repentance from sin, and they were fed up with Israel's intransigence at the time.

And so they took their own brand of Jewish truth to the world. Their time, and history bears it out. I don't see Jews as having become better people under the Law than Christians have been under the Gospel of Christ? We can agree to disagree, if you wish?

[RabbiKnife]

The Law doesn’t make anyone righteous.
The Law points out that no one is righteous.

[Fenris]

The Law doesn’t make anyone righteous.
The Law points out that no one is righteous.

Rare disagreement here. The bible says the exact opposite. Deuteronomy 6 And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.

If you think that's too broad and sweeping, there's this in Deuteronomy 24 When you lend your brother anything, you shall not go into his house to get his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you lend shall bring the pledge out to you. And if the man is poor, you shall not [e]keep his pledge overnight. You shall in any case return the pledge to him again when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his own garment and bless you; and it shall be righteousness to you before the Lord your God.

Something as simple as returning someone's pledge is righteousness! How much more so doing the difficult things that God requires?

[Fenris]

I don't see it either because I didn't say that. I'm saying that when God sees people live lives in ignorance of Him, whether they sin or not, He wants to enlighten them with His laws.

This is true, but it doesn't pertain to the present topic.

After Israel as a nation failed largely to adhere to their Law, it was time for the Romans to have a shot at it.

Again, I would take issue with the statement that "Israel failed largely to adhere to the Law" (Not "their law", by the way. It's God's laws). Israel is punished because God has higher expectations,  Amos 3:2 again.  And no place in the bible (well my bible anyway. Or even in your bible, prior to Paul) does God say that if Israel falls short "someone else gets a shot at it". Read the OT carefully. There's no opt out clause. There's no passing the baton. It's permanent. Jews falling short results in punishment (Lev 26, Deut 28) not an abrogation of their responsibility under the law. This is in the plain text.

It is the Law that makes people righteous--not their ethnicity, not their race.

I agree.

Israel was better because they were given the Law.

Being chosen by God doesn't mean that Jews are better, it means we ought to be better.  Important distinction.

All people should be given the opportunity to start with God's laws.

Again this has nothing to do with the barbaric pagan Romans being "passed the baton". Which I have already said isn't in the bible. Why wasn't the baton "passed" to Assyria or Babylonia? Or the Nazis for that matter. How is oppressing Jews the pathway for coming close to God? It's nauseating now that I think about it.

What I'm saying about European civilization improving is that once they received the Gospel of Christ and the template of Christ's life they were able to apply those standards in society. And  the blessing that fell upon such a society encouraged some of them to become Christians and to at least try to impose moral standards throughout the society, high and low. Many became genuine Christians and did many charitable acts.

This is a fine sentiment, but Europe hasn't been an especially moral continent, historically, and I don't see how it's any worse right now than the last century, or the last millennium for that matter. If you dispute this you need to read some more history.

I don't know what this means or what biblical verses you are sourcing, if any.

Yes, under the Law things like leprosy and mold spread which indicated to me that unclean things were to be avoided, just as pagan people were to be avoided. Over time one can see where Christians in Europe began to practice tolerance and Latitudinarianism, which led to theological liberalism. Ultimately, this leads to unclean practices, making entire societies unclean. This is progressive, indicating things are not static. People are not always bad, and not always good. There is a constant evolution going on.

Ok, so no biblical verses then. This is just your own idea. And that's fine but there's no compelling reason for me to accept it, and I don't. The opposite, Europe was far worse when they weren't tolerant.

The Jewish Scriptures plainly suggested that Israel did become, at times, as bad as pagans,

I don't agree, and using Elijah as an example, I think this is dangerous to suggest.

The fact Baal worship was prevalent in Israel makes my point for me!

The fact that Elijah lost his mission for slandering the Jews makes the point for me.

The fact there is sometimes a corrective indicates that there was a problem--a serious problem!

Lev 26 and Deut 28 say that punishment is part of the process of correction. Not "a serious problem".

This is untrue and vaguely antisemitic to suggest.

I'm not even being vaguely anti-Semitic to suggest the truth. Obviously, Jews would incline towards supporting the Jewish state.

Tens of millions of Evangelicals don't support Israel because the Jews have influenced them in some way. It's because of how the understand the bible. Nefarious conspiracies involving "Jewish influence" is indeed antisemitic. Please stop.

Would you say that Blacks support Black causes in Black Lives Matter? If so, is saying that being prejudiced against Blacks?

This is a red herring. We're not talking about Jews supporting Israel, we're talking about Americans in general. There are about 6 million Jews in this country, less than 2% of the population, nearly all in NY, CA, or FL. This is not who is responsible for American support of Israel. It's the tens of millions of Evangelicals (God bless them) who mostly live in the midwest or the south who are electing pro-Israel representatives. In states with no Jews. So stop already.

1) It isn't wrong to alter one's thinking, if one is influencing something for the good.

Jews aren't altering the thinking of Christians they've never met and never spoken to.

2) Some Christians are not Dispensationalists who believe in the restoration of Israel. Dispensationalists believe Israel must play a role in biblical prophecy.

Take it up with your fellow Christians, not me.

But some Christians may support Jews in Israel because of what they saw in the Holocaust.

And some Christians support Israel because of Gen 12:3.

The founders were Replacement Theology advocates, who saw the Christian mission as being a successor to what they considered to be Israel's "failed" mission.

Umm I don't think so. Again, America was the "almost chosen people".

I do too. But I see ugly headwinds coming from Europe and influencing America. For example, Biden and the Democrats are moving, as a policy, towards European cooperation. They are intentionally allowing our country to be molded by European standards.

This is a separate issue than American vs European Christians.

Do you even read the Jewish Prophets? I don't mean to be mean, but I've read your Bible all my life and have read numerous times in numerous places where the Prophets described Israel as hopelessly corrupt

Again, this is relative. Israel's neighbors were far worse behaved. God didn't punish them, because God had lower expectations of them.

And say what you want, but Israel took their harshest critics and canonized their words. Made them holy writ. That means they understood that their behavior was found lacking before God. If they were truly wicked and beyond hope they would not have done that. Admission of guilt is the first step to repentance.

Jews turned against Jesus

Again this is a weird statement because most Jews at the time would never have heard of Jesus. Anyway-

perhaps because he advocated for submission to Rome, instead of acting as Messiah, who they supposed would free them from Rome.

And why would the Jews have expected this? Could it possibly be because that's what the messianic prophecy said?

But Jesus focused on whether they *deserved* deliverance

This isn't relevant to the messiah's mission. All the prophets (excepting Ezekiel, who describes a different future) say that Jewish repentance precedes the messiah. If the Jews were truly not worthy then the messiah wouldn't come. This isn't some obscure doctrine, it's what the prophets said.

I think the Jewish mob influenced Rome to crucify Jesus.

Pilate had dictatorial powers and abused them numerous times, but whatever.

But the Jews, such as Paul, went after Christians in their ranks, considering them reprobates and an evil influence within Judaism.

So Paul says.

It wasn't just Rome that was hostile to both Jesus and Jewish believers in him.

There were many sects in first century Judea, all hostile to one another. Jewish Christians were not unique in this regard.

Not bizarre from the way Paul, a Jew of the time, saw it. Rejecting Jesus was rejecting the need for repentance.

This is a false set of choices.  I reject Jesus and yet I repent. Why couldn't Jews in the first century do that also?

You may think Jews have always been "lily white," but you would have to revise the history.

I never said anything of the sort. Don't put words in my mouth.

Again, Israel had heard about God, and Rome had not.

This isn't even true. There were  many Jewish converts in Rome during the first century, so much so that Roman writers complained about it.

There is a difference between just "hearing about a rumor" or even "hearing a philosophical proposition" and actually being approached in love with God's offer to have a relationship with you!

LOL. This didn't happen in Rome. Jesus didn't preach in Rome or to Romans or to any gentiles for that matter. He preached to Jews.

Romans didn't have that opportunity until Jewish believers began to take their Gospel of Christ to Rome with the proposition that if they repent they could have eternal fellowship with God.

Jewish practitioners of Judaism also went to Rome, and gained many converts- to Judaism. Yes, we accept converts.

If I were you, I would be immensely proud of the accomplishments of the Jewish People. But it was the Law of God that made the difference.

It was God's promise, not the law. Gen 22:18 "...through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed Me." (See also Gen 12 and Gen 18)

Let other nations have their chance.

They have their chance. Lead moral lives and be good with God. Nothing else is necessary, or ever was.

I don't see Jews as having become better people under the Law than Christians have been under the Gospel of Christ?

Many Christians have behaved horribly "under the Gospel of Christ". Crusades, Inquisition, the Holocaust, all "Christians" or at least people who identified as Christian. I know what you'll say, those people weren't "real Christians". But when Jews behave badly those are "real Jews"? Why do you get to throw out your bad co-religionists but I have to keep mine? No, better we say that those were all "real Christians" and "real Jews", and let the chips fall where to may.

[RandyPNW]

I don't see it either because I didn't say that. I'm saying that when God sees people live lives in ignorance of Him, whether they sin or not, He wants to enlighten them with His laws.

This is true, but it doesn't pertain to the present topic.

No, this is the whole topic, that God wants to bring His laws not just to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. As a Christian I believe He did this at a time when Israel had come to a very low point in their spirituality, rejecting the reform mission of Jesus and John the Baptist.

You take offence when I say that Jews are being targeted as "sinners," giving rise to the need for Christianity. But this is not targeting Jews--this is true of all nations, as I indicated. Christian nations ultimately fall, just as the Hebrews did before the Babylonian Captivity, just as the Jews did before the fall of Jerusalem by the Romans.

There's no opt out clause. There's no passing the baton. It's permanent. Jews falling short results in punishment (Lev 26, Deut 28) not an abrogation of their responsibility under the law. This is in the plain text.

This is an old argument we've had before. The Prophets predicted not just a corrective punishment, but an all-out "divorce." The Law was a "continuing contract," but not a "guaranteed contract." If Israel didn't fulfill their part of the agreement, God could opt out, and He did.

The first time God gave up on Israel, He made provision for a future restoration. In exile the Jews were on life support, still able to keep some parts of the Law. But the Law certainly wasn't in full operation, there being no temple. It's just that God would fulfill His promise to Abraham to enable a nation, and the collapse of the  covenant would not have to mean an end to it, even if it was in a sense effectively dead. Being in captivity, Israel was, in a sense, "dead," even as Ezekiel portrayed it in Eze 37 (valley of dry bones).

Is the outreach to the Gentile nations, including the Romans, in the Bible? It is there in the Abrahamic Promise.

Isa 49.6 he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Jesus made this prediction, that the Jews would go through the New Testament (Christian) Age in Diaspora, while the focus temporarily shifts towards the pagan Gentiles. This seems to be the thought in Daniel  7, where a 4th great empire rises to bring torment to the Jewish people. I believe the 4th great empire is the Roman Empire.

Luke 21.24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

But Jesus also sent his apostles out into the nations, to bring them God's laws, just as Moses had brought God's Law to Israel. This is called the Great Commission by Christians.

Matt 28.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Both Jesus and Paul took issue with the Jewish People in their own time because of their cloaking inner wickedness and murderous thoughts with religious works. Paul, for that reason, defended his outreach to the Gentiles as the product of Israel's rebellion.

God was once again turning against His covenant with the Jews because of their failed compliance. How else can the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD be interpreted? The last time that had happened, during the Babylonian invasion, the Prophets had explicitly said it was punishment for their sins!

Acts 13.46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

Paul quotes Isa 6 to explain that Israel is not just corrected with a continuing covenant, but even more, they are hardened.

Isa 6.9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
    be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
    make their ears dull
    and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

While Israel is "hardened," it has come time, according to Paul and Jesus, to reach out to the pagan nations, just as Abraham had been promised he would have an international posterity of faith. The fact they are pagans is not prohibitive in this plan, since Israel herself was called out of Egypt, a pagan nation.

Paul goes so far as to say that God is using this transition from Israel to pagan nations to make Israel jealous. Just as David was jealous when he learned how the ark blessed another family, and wanted to bring the ark back to his own family, so God is using the blessed Christian nations to entice Israel to return to God's Law--I use the word "Law" generically, since the temple is now gone forever in my estimation.

How is oppressing Jews the pathway for coming close to God? It's nauseating now that I think about it.

You act like a battered wife! Are you experiencing some kind of military fatigue? I know the Jews have suffered persecution, but not every rock you turn over is anti-Semitism!

Tens of millions of Evangelicals don't support Israel because the Jews have influenced them in some way. It's because of how the understand the bible. Nefarious conspiracies involving "Jewish influence" is indeed antisemitic. Please stop.

What needs to stop is this "stress syndrome" in your mind, causing you to think every rock you uncover hides another attack of anti-Semitism. It isn't remotely anti-Semitic to say that Jews want to influence American politics to bring about greater support for a Jewish State.

I mean, we often don't like lobbyists influencing politicians, but should we go so far as to say that lobbying for conservation is evil just because we think "lobbying is evil?"

It isn't at all evil for Jews to influence the U.S. govt. and people to support Israel! I try to do this myself as a non-Jew! This isn't a conspiracy, nor am I say that it is some kind of hidden, under-handed "conspiracy!"

If you're going to talk down to me, get your facts straight. Or, go see a counselor. I have nothing but compassion on the Jewish People, just as I have for African Americans. But I'm not going to sign up for Black Lives Matter anymore than I'm going to convert to Judaism!

This is a red herring. We're not talking about Jews supporting Israel, we're talking about Americans in general. There are about 6 million Jews in this country, less than 2% of the population, nearly all in NY, CA, or FL. This is not who is responsible for American support of Israel. It's the tens of millions of Evangelicals (God bless them) who mostly live in the midwest or the south who are electing pro-Israel representatives. In states with no Jews. So stop already.

What a terrible, condemning attitude you have! I *never* said that *only* Jews are influencing pro-Jewish causes! Clearly, as you say, many Evangelical (and other) Christians support the cause of Israel. Please cease and desist your condemnation and seek help. Or, just try to understand that I'm actually encouraging Jews in American to support Israel's cause? I think it's a good thing. And I think family should support family!

I can't read anymore....

[Fenris]

No, this is the whole topic, that God wants to bring His laws not just to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles.

I don't disagree with this. It's the whole Jewish mission- a moral "pilot project" so to speak, for all of humanity. God gives the Jews divine revelation at Sinai, and our mission is to show the world how to live a Godly life. There's no need for anything else. 

As a Christian I believe He did this at a time when Israel had come to a very low point in their spirituality, rejecting the reform mission of Jesus and John the Baptist.

If you define "low point in spirituality" as not accepting Jesus, then sure. But that's circular logic.

When the Romans besieged Masada in the year 73 and it became obvious that the defenders would fall, they committed mass suicide rather than fall into Roman hands. Their leader, Elazar Ben Yair, gave a very poigant speech (as reported by Josephus)

“Since we long ago resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God Himself, Who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice...We were the very first that revolted, and we are the last to fight against them; and I cannot but esteem it as a favor that God has granted us, that it is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom.”

Say what you want about the guy, but he isn't lacking in faith or devotion to God.

So no, I don't consider the first century a "spiritual low point" for Jews.

In an idle moment I've observed that Jesus's case would have been stronger if he came before the destruction of the first temple, because idolatry was rife at that time in a way that  it wasn't during the second temple era. But he didn't, so...

You take offence when I say that Jews are being targeted as "sinners," giving rise to the need for Christianity. But this is not targeting Jews--this is true of all nations

Again, Jews were punished for falling short because God expected (and still expects) more, because we know better. Other nations are not held to this exacting standard. Some are actually ok (like America) and some are quite bad. I wouldn't paint all the nations of the world as "sinners" either.

This is an old argument we've had before. The Prophets predicted not just a corrective punishment, but an all-out "divorce."

No, they didn't. Isaiah says the exact opposite. You may not like it, but the covenant is permanent. There is punishment under the covenant, but no abrogation. See also Lev 26:44.

The Law was a "continuing contract," but not a "guaranteed contract." If Israel didn't fulfill their part of the agreement, God could opt out, and He did.

Not in the bible and you don't make your case any stronger by pretending that it is.

The first time God gave up on Israel, He made provision for a future restoration. In exile the Jews were on life support,

Not in the bible.

still able to keep some parts of the Law. But the Law certainly wasn't in full operation, there being no temple.

That's irrelevant. This is actually prophecy also in Hosea 3:4 For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice...

It's like saying the law isn't in effect because I don't have a farm, and so I can't leave the edges unharvested for the poor. Just because the conditions for some law can't be actualized doesn't nullify that law. To say that it does is to detract from the bible, expressly forbidden in Deut 4: Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

It's just that God would fulfill His promise to Abraham to enable a nation, and the collapse of the  covenant would not have to mean an end to it, even if it was in a sense effectively dead. Being in captivity, Israel was, in a sense, "dead," even as Ezekiel portrayed it in Eze 37 (valley of dry bones).

You missed the whole point of the analogy. The dry bones live, and the second half of 37 talks about the exiles returning to Israel. Context. Context.

Is the outreach to the Gentile nations, including the Romans, in the Bible?

It sure is. See Deut 4 (again)

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people"

We keep the laws to set an example for the nations to do likewise.

See also Exodus 19- ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.  Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

What do priests do? They minister to lay people. What does a kingdom of priests do? They minister to lay nations.

Isa 49.6 he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

We have debated the identity of the servant in Isaiah in the past. Jews through history have accepted that their mission is to be "a light unto the nations".

Luke 21.24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

But Jesus also sent his apostles out into the nations, to bring them God's laws, just as Moses had brought God's Law to Israel. This is called the Great Commission by Christians.

Matt 28.18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This is not holy writ to me.

God was once again turning against His covenant with the Jews because of their failed compliance. How else can the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD be interpreted? The last time that had happened, during the Babylonian invasion, the Prophets had explicitly said it was punishment for their sins!

Umm yes. Devastation and exile are a punishment for sin. Under the covenant. Read Lev 26 and Deut 28. It doesn't end the covenant though. And again, this supposition that the temples destruction has to be because Jews did not accept Jesus as the messiah is circular logic. Jews understood the destruction's cause being strife between the Jews, which is actually historically true. The year 69 was named "the year of the four emperors"  because Rome went through 4 leaders in the same year. Had the Jews presented a unified front in besieged Jerusalem, the destruction could have been avoided. But there was so much infighting in the city that they could not, and so it was not.

Also, the results of the Bar Kochba revolt (132 to 136) were far more damaging to Judea than the 66 to 70 revolt were.

Paul quotes Isa 6 to explain that Israel is not just corrected with a continuing covenant, but even more, they are hardened.

This prophecy was fulfilled long before Paul's time. He's quoting out of context, a common theme it seems.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

He said, “Go and tell this people:

“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
    be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
 Make the heart of this people calloused;
    make their ears dull
    and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”

The pertinent first part. It's talking about Isaiah, not some future person. The chapter continues-


Then I said, “For how long, Lord?”

And he answered:

“Until the cities lie ruined
    and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
    and the fields ruined and ravaged,
 until the Lord has sent everyone far away
    and the land is utterly forsaken.

Which occurred in 586BC.

While Israel is "hardened," it has come time, according to Paul and Jesus, to reach out to the pagan nations, just as Abraham had been promised he would have an international posterity of faith. The fact they are pagans is not prohibitive in this plan, since Israel herself was called out of Egypt, a pagan nation.

Israel wasn't called out of Egypt for any reason other than God fulfilling a promise to Abraham at the pact between halves. No such promise has been made to other nations, so I do not see how this applies in any way.

Paul goes so far as to say that God is using this transition from Israel to pagan nations to make Israel jealous.

We're not jealous. Really, it's all good.

You act like a battered wife! Are you experiencing some kind of military fatigue? I know the Jews have suffered persecution, but not every rock you turn over is anti-Semitism!

Oh so I guess we can just ignore 20 centuries of persecution then. Much of it by so called Christians. Yup, sweep it under the rug with everything else that bothers you.

What needs to stop is this "stress syndrome" in your mind, causing you to think every rock you uncover hides another attack of anti-Semitism. It isn't remotely anti-Semitic to say that Jews want to influence American politics to bring about greater support for a Jewish State.

It's a common antisemitic theme that Jews manipulate others for their own benefit. Again, tens of millions of Evangelicals don't support Israel because Jews are making them do so. It's because of their understanding of the bible, Gen 12:3 and other places. Stop ignoring this.

If you're going to talk down to me, get your facts straight. Or, go see a counselor.
...
Please cease and desist your condemnation and seek help

"Anyone who disagrees with me is crazy". Classy.