Zionism Undermines our Gospel

[JD731]

God is the first Zionist. It is his idea.

Psalm 48:2
Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

Psalm 78:68
But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

Psalm 125:1
They that trust in the Lord shall be as mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth for ever.

This is a political kingdom that is coming on earth and Mt Zion is the seat of his government of the whole world.

 

[John of Japan]

You have weird compartmentalization going on here. I have read a number of books on hermeneutics in my Bible studies at school, good and bad, but the better ones do not divorce theology from parables. They might teach that we don't make parables "walk on all four legs" (I forget which one put it that way). But we certainly can draw theology from parables. It was the obtuseness of the Disciples that they did not draw proper theological conclusions from the Master's parables and metaphors. And you are doing the same thing.

You need to relearn how to interpret parables. You have tried to make the story of the Good Samaritan a political treatise about Israel and the Palestinians. Here's a blog by a Bible scholar about that very parable and exactly how folks like to make it political: Interpreting Parables | Dr. Mike Lester.

You don't have to agree with me that parables are not for theology. (Almost all my hermeneutics books are at home, so I can't get any quotes about that.) However, surely you will agree with him and other scholars that a parable only has one central meaning. If there is only one central meaning, you can't change the meaning into whatever you want to. Exegeting the Good Samaritan should take us to loving a genuine neighbor (not a people group) who someone has antipathy towards.

Now, if I ever come across an individual Palestinian Arab who needs help, I'll be there for him.

 

[Van]

I think you know what I meant. Yes, of course, God's Word will always eventually do what He intends. Yet still, Christians on a personal level can still undermine the Gospel message that they are giving out in their personal spheres of influence. Good grief, do I have to type everything out like a lawyer?

Sir, me thinks thou protest too much!

The linked article was not about flaws in our personal presentation of the gospel. It was anti-semitic and thus non-Christian. Did you note that the article accused Israel of "ongoing genocide?"

 

[asterisktom]

Sir, me thinks thou protest too much!

The linked article was not about flaws in our personal presentation of the gospel. It was anti-semitic and thus non-Christian. Did you note that the article accused Israel of "ongoing genocide?"

Well of course I did. If what happens in Palestine, the killing and emptying, is not genocide I like to know what is. Get out your dictionary.

 

[John of Japan]

Why don't we actually define "genocide," since asterisktom seems to think it is happening in Gaza, following the far left usage of the term. Here is is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide). That is not what is happening in Gaza. The IDF does have the capability of destroying every single non-Jew in Gaza, but they have not. So genocide is not happening there.

Interestingly, here is a Democrat who had to take back her statement using the word, since she had used it wrongly (like asterisktom): Troy Jackson apologizes for "genocide" remarks—Where other Democrats stand. Here is another case of that, this time by the House #2 Democrat: Katherine Clark, No. 2 House Democrat, takes back Gaza ‘genocide’ comment

 

[Deacon]

[snip]. They might teach that we don't make parables "walk on all four legs" (I forget which one put it that way). .... [snip]

Bernard Ramm! Great stuff!

"Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. “The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,” writes Dodd. “The details are not intended to have independent significance.” Others have put the rule this way: Don’t make a parable walk on all fours."
Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. p. 283.

 

[asterisktom]

Bernard Ramm! Great stuff!

"Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. “The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,” writes Dodd. “The details are not intended to have independent significance.” Others have put the rule this way: Don’t make a parable walk on all fours."
Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. p. 283.

Thank you for sourcing this.

 

[asterisktom]

Why don't we actually define "genocide," since asterisktom seems to think it is happening in Gaza, following the far left usage of the term. Here is is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide). That is not what is happening in Gaza. The IDF does have the capability of destroying every single non-Jew in Gaza, but they have not. So genocide is not happening there.

By your bizarre definition, or extrapolation from your dictionary entry, genocide never happened at any time in history. Because there has never been a case where all of any people group have been killed. Not in the Holocaust, nor the Holodomor, nor in Rwanda or in the Armenian Genocide. In your misguided exoneration of the IDF you not only lower the bar, you obliterate it.

This is from Wikipedia:
"The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as:

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Yes, this is Wiki. Don't focus on that. The Genocide Convention certainly has legitimacy. What is more, their definition of the term is more accurate than your Merriam-Webster. The definition of the GC includes intent. And this intent to destroy all of the people who live in Palestine has been clearly stated by leading figures in the IDF as well as Netanyahu's government. If need be, I can share these.

 

[asterisktom]

You need to relearn how to interpret parables. You have tried to make the story of the Good Samaritan a political treatise about Israel and the Palestinians. Here's a blog by a Bible scholar about that very parable and exactly how folks like to make it political: Interpreting Parables | Dr. Mike Lester.

You don't have to agree with me that parables are not for theology. (Almost all my hermeneutics books are at home, so I can't get any quotes about that.) However, surely you will agree with him and other scholars that a parable only has one central meaning. If there is only one central meaning, you can't change the meaning into whatever you want to. Exegeting the Good Samaritan should take us to loving a genuine neighbor (not a people group) who someone has antipathy towards.

Now, if I ever come across an individual Palestinian Arab who needs help, I'll be there for him.

I actually did meet and talk to more than one. I wish you could meet them. Maybe I don't. I am currently in a Muslim-majority country, Malaysia, and have spent time in several others. While I am strongly opposed to their religion I also notice that most of them are very kind. Many of them have only a slight connection to the Koran, certainly would not follow those most bellicose and devilish passages in that book.

You say I "have tried to make the story of the Good Samaritan a political treatise about Israel and the Palestinians"! You still don't get it. My focus in the OP was what that parable teaches us Christians, that we are to love our neighbor. You keep deflecting the focus away from yourself - and all of us who name the name of Christ.

You berate me for trying to draw theology and politics out of this parable. Well, the underlying foundation of this parable, the Great Commandment, Matt. 22:37-39, assumes both of these elements. We are to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, [THEOLOGY] and second, to love your neighbor as yourself [PEOPLE - POLITICS]. Our Lord said that "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets,".

You get your exegetical methodology from faulty sources if they lead you to focus so narrowly on one interpretation of a parable, yet do not recognize that they lead to other weighty truths. And my view here is not a private one. A number of commentators say the same. Albert Barnes, for instance, finds seven distinct, powerful lessons where you would only find one. Check out his comment on this parable and you will see.

 

[asterisktom]

Bernard Ramm! Great stuff!

"Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. “The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,” writes Dodd. “The details are not intended to have independent significance.” Others have put the rule this way: Don’t make a parable walk on all fours."
Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. p. 283.

But I hope you realize that what Bernard Ramm rightly warns against is not really what John of Japan is proscribing. The details of the Samaritan Parable (the wounding, the different men involved, the oil, the wine, the road - even the Samaritan's animal! - can be - and by a number of Church Fathers have been - assigned separate meanings. Much of this is vary far-fetched.

But the various details of a parable are not the same as the various applications of that same parable. This is not making the parable "walk on all fours". It is letting it walk wherever it needs to walk, stepping on shoes in the process.

 

[JonC]

Well of course I did. If what happens in Palestine, the killing and emptying, is not genocide I like to know what is. Get out your dictionary.

Was Israel's attacks on Gaza genocide? No, obviously not (by definition of the word).

Palestinians are not a unique ethnic group. Israel could have decided to kill every person in Gaza and it would not have been genocide.

BUT Palestinians have been calling for genocide for decades. The government of Gaza, chosen by Palestinians, have been calling for genocide.


If we use the meaning of "genocide" then the only ones guilty of trying to commit that atrocity in the area are the Palestines and neighboring Arab nations.

This does not make Israel or Palestine correct.

It is questioning your removal of meanings to words (I take it "genocide" sounds worse so you choose that word).

The Palestinians are Arabs (ethnically). They do not have a unique religion. It is impossible that destroying Gaza entirely, every man, woman and child, be defined as genocide.


So why did Israel strike so hard when Gaza's government kidnapped and murdered so many civilians (men, woman, and children)?

Obviously one reason was to stop the continued attack (Gazan military was housed within civilian populations).

But probably also to discourage its neighbors so that history would not repeat itself.


Anyway, my point is Israel's response to Gaza cannot be defined as "genocide".

You can argue it was an excessive response. But misusing words because they envoke more emotion is not right.

 

[asterisktom]

Was Israel's attacks on Gaza genocide? No, obviously not (by definition of the word).

Palestinians are not a unique ethnic group. Israel could have decided to kill every person in Gaza and it would not have been genocide.

BUT Palestinians have been calling for genocide for decades. The government of Gaza, chosen by Palestinians, have been calling for genocide.


If we use the meaning of "genocide" then the only ones guilty of trying to commit that atrocity in the area are the Palestines and neighboring Arab nations.

This does not make Israel or Palestine correct.

It is questioning your removal of meanings to words (I take it "genocide" sounds worse so you choose that word).

The Palestinians are Arabs (ethnically). They do not have a unique religion. It is impossible that destroying Gaza entirely, every man, woman and child, be defined as genocide.


So why did Israel strike so hard when Gaza's government kidnapped and murdered so many civilians (men, woman, and children)?

Obviously one reason was to stop the continued attack (Gazan military was housed within civilian populations).

But probably also to discourage its neighbors so that history would not repeat itself.


Anyway, my point is Israel's response to Gaza cannot be defined as "genocide".

You can argue it was an excessive response. But misusing words because they envoke more emotion is not right.

John, please see my answer (#48) to John of Japan on this issue and let me know what you think.

 

[JonC]

John, please see my answer (#48) to John of Japan on this issue and let me know what you think.

"The word “genocide” was first coined by Polish lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. It consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term partly in response to the Nazi policies of systematic murder of Jewish people during the Holocaust, but also in response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. Later on, Raphäel Lemkin led the campaign to have genocide recognised and codified as an international crime." (UN Office on Genocide Pervention)


It is not that genocide has ever been completed but the "targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people."

In Gaza, Israel was not taking targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people". Israel never tried to destroy all Arabs. Israel did not eben try to destroy all Palestinians.

Israel's aim was not to even to take Gaza (Israel gave the land to the Arabs after it had conquered the land while defending itself against attack decades ago).

The ultimate aim of the Palestinian government (along with other Arab allies) was and is the destruction of the Jewish people (not just conquering Israel, not just gaining Israel's land, but the destruction of the Jewish people). That is genocide.

By your definition most military action in history is genocide. The word means something different than how you use it.


BTW, this is why the Palestinian government chose to blend military and civilian. Israel can rightly claim to be targeting only military targets while once hit Hamas can claim they were civilian.

Anyway, the charge of genocide is false propaganda. It sounds better than "excessive retaliation". But it minimizes genocide.

 

[John of Japan]

By your bizarre definition, or extrapolation from your dictionary entry, genocide never happened at any time in history.

You misunderstand. By the Mirriam-Webster definition, genocide does not mean killing every single person of a people group, but the attempted murder of all

Because there has never been a case where all of any people group have been killed. Not in the Holocaust, nor the Holodomor, nor in Rwanda or in the Armenian Genocide. In your misguided exoneration of the IDF you not only lower the bar, you obliterate it.

Well, of course not. I did not say there was no time in history genocide happened, nor did Mirriam-Webster. The Germans tried to destroy all Jews in WW2 times, and killed 6 million. As for the IDF, my point was not very well put if you think I meant the killing of every single Palestinian. Note that: (1) At this point, the population of Gaza is about 2.1 million. (2) According to the data, there have been about 73,470 killed out of a population of 2.1 million (https://gisha.org/en/publication_type/gaza-now-current-facts-and-figures/). BBC News (a neutral source) says that about 23,600 of those are Hamas fighters (citing Israeli sources, Israeli media cite official accepting Hamas figure of 70,000 war dead). So, out of 2,100,000 total population (many still Hamas fighters), 49,870 civilians have died. That means only 2.4 per cent of the civilian population of Gaza have died.

So, you have been deceived. There is no genocide. 2.4% of a population, with the fighting stopped, is not genocide in any way, shape or form. Even liberal Democrats are not using that term any more, as I have shown. So you are to the left of the most leftist politicians.

This is from Wikipedia:
"The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as:

Yes, this is Wiki. Don't focus on that. The Genocide Convention certainly has legitimacy. What is more, their definition of the term is more accurate than your Merriam-Webster. The definition of the GC includes intent. And this intent to destroy all of the people who live in Palestine has been clearly stated by leading figures in the IDF as well as Netanyahu's government. If need be, I can share these.

Sorry, I can't ignore the fact that you are using the most inadequate source on the planet: Wikipedia. I consider it completely untrustworthy. Most academics do not allow Wikipedia, and the schools where I teach do not allow it as a source in any endeavor. I once looked up a Greek NT ms on it, and there were two different notes about the content of the ms. That is because any amateur can correct any professional on it.

And no, the Genocide Convention has no legitimacy whatsoever. It has an antisemite agenda. And as for including "intent" in the crime of genocide, that's ridiculous. If I go into a store with the "intent" to shoplift, but think better of it and leave the store, have I shoplifted? No, of course not. "Intent" makes the accuser out to be a mind reader, and that is impossible. No one can tell "intent" accurately. It is exactly what the "thought police" of the novel 1984 were supposed to control.

 

[John of Japan]

And Chicken Little cried, "Oh, no, the IDF killed 2.4% of the civilian population of Gaza. That's genocide!!"

No, that is the normal fog of war. Unfortunately, all wars without exception kill civilians. If the IDF is attempting genocide, they are extremely poor at it. Germany had 5.5 million civilians killed in WW2 (Not counting the 6 million Jewish civilians they themselves killed in genocide), and the Allies were not trying to kill civilians. (Unfortunately the Allies did try to kill Japanese civilians in WW2 with the Tokyo fire bombing and the A-Bombs).

 

[Logos1560]

MSN

www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gaza-health-ministry-makes-massive-blunder-releases-health-numbers-debunking-their-own-genocide-narrative/ar-AA2dpTbr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=bdf129f8eb0443ba94d95327ad44f366&ei=11

 

[JonC]

An easy way to look it (and know it was not genocide) is to examine the population of Israel.

About 21% of Israeli citizens are Palestinian. Israel has not harmed them (many are in the Israeli government and military).

 

[Van]

Bernard Ramm! Great stuff!

"Determine the one central truth the parable is attempting to teach. This might be called the golden rule of parabolic interpretation for practically all writers on the subject mention it with stress. “The typical parable presents one single point of comparison,” writes Dodd. “The details are not intended to have independent significance.” Others have put the rule this way: Don’t make a parable walk on all fours."
Ramm, Bernard. 1970. Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. Third Revised Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. p. 283.

I do not have that book to review, so the about snippet might not accurately reflect the author's position. But as presented, it seems to say a typical parable presents only one valid point of comparison, and the details do not have independent significance.

This seems to be an effort to justify scriptural nullification. Let's look at Matthew 13:18-23 and the Parable of the Sower

Here we are told the various truths presented in the parable, not one or two, but several.

I believe the opposite of the apparent contention of the snippet, we are to study them and derive as much truth as they contain, especially when traditional or historic interpretation seems to gloss over an important truth.

 

[Van]

Luke 8:12 NASB
“And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

It is anybody's guess as to just what is the single point of comparison in the Parable of the Sower, but here is just one verse from one Gospel rendering. In this verse we might say some people have "hardened hearts" such that even when the gospel is presented, they do not understand it correctly, such that they are unable to believe such that God would credit their faith and save them.

But as a teachable corollary, can we not say that when we accept false doctrine as true, we harden our own heart and impede acceptance of actual truth?

 

[kyredneck]

Luke 8:12 NASB
“And those beside the road are the ones who have heard, then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Saved/delivered/rescued from what, Van?

Who is the audience, Van?

Does the Devil have the power to snatch at will anyone away from God?

How do you imagine the Devil was manifested in this temporal realm to ‘that generation’?