I've got mixed feelings about this topic. One the one hand, yes the old testament teaches that it's a perpetual land grant. On the other hand, numerous other Christians believe Jesus ended this prophecy with the church of the body which is comprised of Jew and Gentile, the modern-day Israel. Preterists do not believe in the [perpetual] land grant and I don't believe TWI did either.
This thread is inherently political. Our only reason to examine the question at hand is steeped in politics.
All I'm after is the biblical...honest... have friends on both sides of the argument and am sincerely torn between the two. Raf can you offer your biblical wisdom?
To me, even if you remove current politics from it, you get the following question:
"Can a nation claim land on the legal grounds that an Imaginary Being granted the land to an Imaginary Ancestor, sealed by self-mutilation at a date and time witnessed by no one but recorded for posterity after the fact by people living better than a thousand years later?
Pray tell, why should anyone who DOESN'T worship this god be bound by this bequest?
Can a nation claim land on the legal grounds that an Imaginary Being granted the land to an Imaginary Ancestor, sealed by self-mutilation at a date and time witnessed by no one but recorded for posterity after the fact by people living better than a thousand years later?
The claim certainly can be asserted. And the assertion may even be sincere. But on legal grounds?
See, that's my problem. If it's history, it's not credible and the only reason to discuss it is politics.
If we're talking about doctrine, there's really nothing debatable about it. Yeah, God said this land is your land. Doctrinally. But history can't even document the existence of Abraham, never mind God. And if we're going to allow divine real estate transactions to determine land rights, there are probably a handful of Native American believers in the Great Spirit who have a problem or two with our current state borders.
And if we're going to allow divine real estate transactions to determine land rights, there are probably a handful of Native American believers in the Great Spirit who have a problem or two with our current state borders.
See, that's my problem. If it's history, it's not credible and the only reason to discuss it is politics.
If we're talking about doctrine, there's really nothing debatable about it. Yeah, God said this land is your land. Doctrinally. But history can't even document the existence of Abraham, never mind God. And if we're going to allow divine real estate transactions to determine land rights, there are probably a handful of Native American believers in the Great Spirit who have a problem or two with our current state borders.
Oh, but THEIR Great Spirit is not God. Got it.
Yeah you start to mix up politics and religion and real estate then you have a real mess.
Or a new tv series idea lol
With Israel more recent history implies a few warring tribes with conflict dating back a thousand years. It’s just one of them has nukes and Western support.
Native Americans rather than having the Great Spirit define their living boundaries have instead had a cruel government dictate them, and ensure generational poverty by giving them an acre of land and a crappy model home. Alaskan natives fared better with their deals with the government happening much later. They own a piece of the oil pipeline and are rich. So many native corporations now are winning government contract bids in many different areas.
I can’t do a thing about the Israel conflict all I can do is keep a good relationship with my own neighbors and pray and hope for the best.
Thanks for posting up the prevalent views in the topic guys.
See, that's my problem. If it's history, it's not credible and the only reason to discuss it is politics.
If we're talking about doctrine, there's really nothing debatable about it. Yeah, God said this land is your land. Doctrinally. But history can't even document the existence of Abraham, never mind God. And if we're going to allow divine real estate transactions to determine land rights, there are probably a handful of Native American believers in the Great Spirit who have a problem or two with our current state borders.
Oh, but THEIR Great Spirit is not God. Got it.
What's your take on Ward's offering? Specifically, the completed works of Christ biblically ended the old covenant and the "land grant"?
Not sure why my opinion is of any particular interest, but I would suggest a plain reading of Revelation reveals Yahweh still has a great interest in Israel as a nation and people. I doubt anyone could say definitively that the covenant was ended, especially since it was an everlasting covenant. I could easily be wrong, my G.A.S. having lapsed some time ago.
Not sure why my opinion is of any particular interest, but I would suggest a plain reading of Revelation reveals Yahweh still has a great interest in Israel as a nation and people. I doubt anyone could say definitively that the covenant was ended, especially since it was an everlasting covenant. I could easily be wrong, my G.A.S. having lapsed some time ago.
Thx Raf for your opinion. I'm leaning to the preterist view, i.e., Christ's completed work eventually established the 'body of Christ', the true modern-day Israel, inhabited by both Jew and Gentile believers in Christ-- that negates the old covenant of Israel under Judaism. The preterist belief also is shared by some very strict Catholics who have been described as 'partial-preterists' by the preterists themselves. Some trad Catholics still believe that Jews and Gentiles who haven't accepted Christ as Lord and Savior are destined to hell because of original sin. Am working on a short video of someone sharing that viewpoint that can be posted here in a few days.
BTW here is Ward's "letter to his Dad" concerning Darby, if anyone is interested:
God grants a chunk of land to certain peoples whom he favours, to keep them safe and to give them a base.
Also, he had a plan for redemption and that plan needed a safe place for the Promised Seed to be raised in safety, surrounded by safe people. A "layette," if you like, in modern parlance. A baby cot, perhaps.
As the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God himself says that he will clear it as they advanced; they would not have to fight for it. Deut 2 sets out some of this, but there is much in the early chapters of the Bible on this theme. In fact, the Israelites never fully, properly, occupied all of the land that was promised to them. The far northern part was never fully realised.
In the parts where they lived, farmed, prospered, the Israelites were to be an example to the nations around them. They were to welcome strangers (reminding them that they were once strangers in a strange land - Egypt), and allow them to live in their land, their community, without harassment. The Israelites were to have no king, no "boss man" but were to look to God as their leader and protector. They were not supposed to have horses etc and put their trust in material defences. They were to look to the Lord and pray for his protection.
Time progressed, they demanded a king, some of the Israelites fell away, and God had to narrow his vision to protecting the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
From time to time, the ancient tribes were captured and carried off to foreign lands - perhaps a forerunner to events millennia later? They took with them their culture, their beliefs, their lifestyle. That they spread the gospel as they understood it is clear from other OT records. For example: Daniel was carried off to Babylon, rose to high rank, and is credited with teaching that lasted at least until the magi/astronomers came to see the baby Jesus. Another example: Naaman, army commander in the army in Aram, was a leper. His slave girl told him to seek help from the prophet of Israel. Thus we see that the wider outreach of God's love is being spoken about and demonstrated.
Eventually the Promised Seed was born, lived, and died. Purpose for the "layette" achieved.
But I do not think this is the only reason for no longer holding the "promised land." God wants his name known everywhere. He wants his people to be an example of how to live righteously according to his standards. Jesus sent his disciples throughout Israel to spread the gospel, to bring it first to the chosen people. He even sent his first tranche of disciples out without any weaponry, and strictly forbids that.
But later, he knows that the gospel is to spread throughout the world, not restricted to a small group of people, but to show that God's love is for, and available to, all. A small middle eastern piece of land was no longer sufficient to hold the chosen people; God is (re)claiming the whole earth for himself for his chosen people. Disciples now are to be the "salt of the earth," salt representing commitment. Salt in a big heap isn't much good and turns the land sour. It's poisonous. Salt in small quantities, sprinkled in food, is good for preservation, flavour, enjoyment.
Do we want to keep our baby cot? Maybe, as a relic and a reminder. Maybe even treasure it, as we might treasure our childhood teddy bear or blankie. But it's served its purpose.
Do we want to return to, to stay, in our baby cot? Nah, life is much richer than that.
Do I say that the land currently known as Israel should not exist? No, I am not saying that. There is much that could be said, but this is not the place for that.
I am carefully refraining from political comment on the land currently known as Israel and the situation therein; I'm just looking at the historical roots and later background of the promise.
God grants a chunk of land to certain peoples whom he favours, to keep them safe and to give them a base.
Also, he had a plan for redemption and that plan needed a safe place for the Promised Seed to be raised in safety, surrounded by safe people. A "layette," if you like, in modern parlance. A baby cot, perhaps.
As the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God himself says that he will clear it as they advanced; they would not have to fight for it. Deut 2 sets out some of this, but there is much in the early chapters of the Bible on this theme. In fact, the Israelites never fully, properly, occupied all of the land that was promised to them. The far northern part was never fully realised.
In the parts where they lived, farmed, prospered, the Israelites were to be an example to the nations around them. They were to welcome strangers (reminding them that they were once strangers in a strange land - Egypt), and allow them to live in their land, their community, without harassment. The Israelites were to have no king, no "boss man" but were to look to God as their leader and protector. They were not supposed to have horses etc and put their trust in material defences. They were to look to the Lord and pray for his protection.
Time progressed, they demanded a king, some of the Israelites fell away, and God had to narrow his vision to protecting the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
From time to time, the ancient tribes were captured and carried off to foreign lands - perhaps a forerunner to events millennia later? They took with them their culture, their beliefs, their lifestyle. That they spread the gospel as they understood it is clear from other OT records. For example: Daniel was carried off to Babylon, rose to high rank, and is credited with teaching that lasted at least until the magi/astronomers came to see the baby Jesus. Another example: Naaman, army commander in the army in Aram, was a leper. His slave girl told him to seek help from the prophet of Israel. Thus we see that the wider outreach of God's love is being spoken about and demonstrated.
Eventually the Promised Seed was born, lived, and died. Purpose for the "layette" achieved.
But I do not think this is the only reason for no longer holding the "promised land." God wants his name known everywhere. He wants his people to be an example of how to live righteously according to his standards. Jesus sent his disciples throughout Israel to spread the gospel, to bring it first to the chosen people. He even sent his first tranche of disciples out without any weaponry, and strictly forbids that.
But later, he knows that the gospel is to spread throughout the world, not restricted to a small group of people, but to show that God's love is for, and available to, all. A small middle eastern piece of land was no longer sufficient to hold the chosen people; God is (re)claiming the whole earth for himself for his chosen people. Disciples now are to be the "salt of the earth," salt representing commitment. Salt in a big heap isn't much good and turns the land sour. It's poisonous. Salt in small quantities, sprinkled in food, is good for preservation, flavour, enjoyment.
Do we want to keep our baby cot? Maybe, as a relic and a reminder. Maybe even treasure it, as we might treasure our childhood teddy bear or blankie. But it's served its purpose.
Do we want to return to, to stay, in our baby cot? Nah, life is much richer than that.
Do I say that the land currently known as Israel should not exist? No, I am not saying that. There is much that could be said, but this is not the place for that.
I am carefully refraining from political comment on the land currently known as Israel and the situation therein; I'm just looking at the historical roots and later background of the promise.
From the time which you started from in your post to the present day, religion (and the accompanying idea that one leader of a group of people has the right to declare their people superior over another) have been the reasons for wars, inquisitions, persecutions, forced emigration, etc., all of which were and are still crimes against humanity.
Seriously, why could a supreme, loving, all-powerful spiritual being not come up with a quicker way of bringing about a "messiah," like say right away instead of 4,000 years later?
I think the ideas in the song "Imagine" are more humane than the above bedtime story which whitewashes the wars, infanticides, genocides and slavery of POW's in the OT.
Dunno, Charity. There were wars before and wars after the promise of specific land. Wars, famine, water access/rights, minerals... Greed, and refusal to share, is what runs the world as we know it. And such will continue until our planet is exhausted.
(What worries me is that this is continuing into space, with people now wanting to mine the moon and asteroids - as if someone has rights to those, hahahaha.) (But that thought is way off topic.)
16 hours ago, Charity said:
Seriously, why could a supreme, loving, all-powerful spiritual being not come up with a quicker way of bringing about a "messiah," like say right away instead of 4,000 years later?
A good question we can't know the answer to. Maybe ask it when Christ returns? According to VPW, that's what Eve thought ("I have gotten a man from the Lord."). But I don 't believe that interpretation.
Sometimes people have to hit rock bottom before they can accept help - they "come to the end of themselves." Maybe that's where society was then?
(What worries me is that this is continuing into space, with people now wanting to mine the moon and asteroids - as if someone has rights to those, hahahaha.) (But that thought is way off topic.)
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." (good pun)
Well if anyone does, I hope they don't displace whoever might be there already. Or if they're the first, I hope they share.
I'd like to place this here as another aspect of the topic on Israel, namely, that God needed a people, sect or tribe to eventually bring forth the Messiah, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, which was one of the 12 tribes of Israel. His sacrifice was able to redeem mankind through the shedding of his precious blood. Thank you Jesus.!
I think it is possible to have this topic without getting political, but is it probable?
The linked article is clearly political.
I mean, at least Allan's recent political topic is so thickly veiled that it's plausibly deniable. So obscure is the allusion, the discussion naturally advanced in a different direction.
Recommended Posts
oldiesman
Here is an offering from a friend who shares the Preterist view on this topic:
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This thread is inherently political. Our only reason to examine the question at hand is steeped in politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
All I'm after is the biblical...honest... have friends on both sides of the argument and am sincerely torn between the two. Raf can you offer your biblical wisdom?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can't.
To me, even if you remove current politics from it, you get the following question:
"Can a nation claim land on the legal grounds that an Imaginary Being granted the land to an Imaginary Ancestor, sealed by self-mutilation at a date and time witnessed by no one but recorded for posterity after the fact by people living better than a thousand years later?
Pray tell, why should anyone who DOESN'T worship this god be bound by this bequest?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The claim certainly can be asserted. And the assertion may even be sincere. But on legal grounds?
Here are some other asserted claims:
”Cocks crowed differently in Bible times.”
”Four were crucified with Jesus, not two.”
”I invented the hook shot.”
”It snowed.”
Is this a discussion of doctrine or of history?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
See, that's my problem. If it's history, it's not credible and the only reason to discuss it is politics.
If we're talking about doctrine, there's really nothing debatable about it. Yeah, God said this land is your land. Doctrinally. But history can't even document the existence of Abraham, never mind God. And if we're going to allow divine real estate transactions to determine land rights, there are probably a handful of Native American believers in the Great Spirit who have a problem or two with our current state borders.
Oh, but THEIR Great Spirit is not God. Got it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Yep.
Edited by Nathan_JrMmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It seems that others have asked the same question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah you start to mix up politics and religion and real estate then you have a real mess.
Or a new tv series idea lol
With Israel more recent history implies a few warring tribes with conflict dating back a thousand years. It’s just one of them has nukes and Western support.
Native Americans rather than having the Great Spirit define their living boundaries have instead had a cruel government dictate them, and ensure generational poverty by giving them an acre of land and a crappy model home. Alaskan natives fared better with their deals with the government happening much later. They own a piece of the oil pipeline and are rich. So many native corporations now are winning government contract bids in many different areas.
I can’t do a thing about the Israel conflict all I can do is keep a good relationship with my own neighbors and pray and hope for the best.
Thanks for posting up the prevalent views in the topic guys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
OMG I’m dying lol. Help help I’m being repressed. Oh I so need to watch Monty Python Holy Grail again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What's your take on Ward's offering? Specifically, the completed works of Christ biblically ended the old covenant and the "land grant"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not sure why my opinion is of any particular interest, but I would suggest a plain reading of Revelation reveals Yahweh still has a great interest in Israel as a nation and people. I doubt anyone could say definitively that the covenant was ended, especially since it was an everlasting covenant. I could easily be wrong, my G.A.S. having lapsed some time ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thx Raf for your opinion. I'm leaning to the preterist view, i.e., Christ's completed work eventually established the 'body of Christ', the true modern-day Israel, inhabited by both Jew and Gentile believers in Christ-- that negates the old covenant of Israel under Judaism. The preterist belief also is shared by some very strict Catholics who have been described as 'partial-preterists' by the preterists themselves. Some trad Catholics still believe that Jews and Gentiles who haven't accepted Christ as Lord and Savior are destined to hell because of original sin. Am working on a short video of someone sharing that viewpoint that can be posted here in a few days.
BTW here is Ward's "letter to his Dad" concerning Darby, if anyone is interested:
A LETTER TO MY DAD CONCERNING JOHN NELSON DARBY ON ROMANS 11-Preterism, Darby, and eschatology and Preterist soteriology concerning the second coming of Christ in the clouds; Preterism and Preterist eschatology, Darby, the rapture and prophecy from a preterist perspective
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
The way I've always understood this is:
God grants a chunk of land to certain peoples whom he favours, to keep them safe and to give them a base.
Also, he had a plan for redemption and that plan needed a safe place for the Promised Seed to be raised in safety, surrounded by safe people. A "layette," if you like, in modern parlance. A baby cot, perhaps.
As the Israelites entered the Promised Land, God himself says that he will clear it as they advanced; they would not have to fight for it. Deut 2 sets out some of this, but there is much in the early chapters of the Bible on this theme. In fact, the Israelites never fully, properly, occupied all of the land that was promised to them. The far northern part was never fully realised.
In the parts where they lived, farmed, prospered, the Israelites were to be an example to the nations around them. They were to welcome strangers (reminding them that they were once strangers in a strange land - Egypt), and allow them to live in their land, their community, without harassment. The Israelites were to have no king, no "boss man" but were to look to God as their leader and protector. They were not supposed to have horses etc and put their trust in material defences. They were to look to the Lord and pray for his protection.
Time progressed, they demanded a king, some of the Israelites fell away, and God had to narrow his vision to protecting the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
From time to time, the ancient tribes were captured and carried off to foreign lands - perhaps a forerunner to events millennia later? They took with them their culture, their beliefs, their lifestyle. That they spread the gospel as they understood it is clear from other OT records. For example: Daniel was carried off to Babylon, rose to high rank, and is credited with teaching that lasted at least until the magi/astronomers came to see the baby Jesus. Another example: Naaman, army commander in the army in Aram, was a leper. His slave girl told him to seek help from the prophet of Israel. Thus we see that the wider outreach of God's love is being spoken about and demonstrated.
Eventually the Promised Seed was born, lived, and died. Purpose for the "layette" achieved.
But I do not think this is the only reason for no longer holding the "promised land." God wants his name known everywhere. He wants his people to be an example of how to live righteously according to his standards. Jesus sent his disciples throughout Israel to spread the gospel, to bring it first to the chosen people. He even sent his first tranche of disciples out without any weaponry, and strictly forbids that.
But later, he knows that the gospel is to spread throughout the world, not restricted to a small group of people, but to show that God's love is for, and available to, all. A small middle eastern piece of land was no longer sufficient to hold the chosen people; God is (re)claiming the whole earth for himself for his chosen people. Disciples now are to be the "salt of the earth," salt representing commitment. Salt in a big heap isn't much good and turns the land sour. It's poisonous. Salt in small quantities, sprinkled in food, is good for preservation, flavour, enjoyment.
Do we want to keep our baby cot? Maybe, as a relic and a reminder. Maybe even treasure it, as we might treasure our childhood teddy bear or blankie. But it's served its purpose.
Do we want to return to, to stay, in our baby cot? Nah, life is much richer than that.
Do I say that the land currently known as Israel should not exist? No, I am not saying that. There is much that could be said, but this is not the place for that.
I am carefully refraining from political comment on the land currently known as Israel and the situation therein; I'm just looking at the historical roots and later background of the promise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I share this view and believe it was designed to eventually be a base for the one body, i.e., 'the Body of Christ' as we know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
From the time which you started from in your post to the present day, religion (and the accompanying idea that one leader of a group of people has the right to declare their people superior over another) have been the reasons for wars, inquisitions, persecutions, forced emigration, etc., all of which were and are still crimes against humanity.
Seriously, why could a supreme, loving, all-powerful spiritual being not come up with a quicker way of bringing about a "messiah," like say right away instead of 4,000 years later?
I think the ideas in the song "Imagine" are more humane than the above bedtime story which whitewashes the wars, infanticides, genocides and slavery of POW's in the OT.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Dunno, Charity. There were wars before and wars after the promise of specific land. Wars, famine, water access/rights, minerals... Greed, and refusal to share, is what runs the world as we know it. And such will continue until our planet is exhausted.
(What worries me is that this is continuing into space, with people now wanting to mine the moon and asteroids - as if someone has rights to those, hahahaha.) (But that thought is way off topic.)
A good question we can't know the answer to. Maybe ask it when Christ returns? According to VPW, that's what Eve thought ("I have gotten a man from the Lord."). But I don 't believe that interpretation.
Sometimes people have to hit rock bottom before they can accept help - they "come to the end of themselves." Maybe that's where society was then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." (good pun)
Well if anyone does, I hope they don't displace whoever might be there already. Or if they're the first, I hope they share.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'd like to place this here as another aspect of the topic on Israel, namely, that God needed a people, sect or tribe to eventually bring forth the Messiah, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, which was one of the 12 tribes of Israel. His sacrifice was able to redeem mankind through the shedding of his precious blood. Thank you Jesus.!
‘Tis The Season For Historical Revisionism: The Myth Of Jesus As A Palestinian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sigh.
Click on the link.
It's 100 percent political.
Crowdsourcing instead of taking unilateral action:
Is it even possible to have this topic without getting political?
Does this post cross the line for our site? What say ye?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Raf I respect your opinion ... delete if you must.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Appreciate that but i would like feedback.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I think it is possible to have this topic without getting political, but is it probable?
The linked article is clearly political.
I mean, at least Allan's recent political topic is so thickly veiled that it's plausibly deniable. So obscure is the allusion, the discussion naturally advanced in a different direction.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.