Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear

[Revmitchell]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."


More Here

 

[exscentric]

He keeps up his yappin somebody is gunna punch his lights out don't you think?

I've half expected Israel to do something for a long time.

 

[Revmitchell]

He keeps up his yappin somebody is gunna punch his lights out don't you think?

I've half expected Israel to do something for a long time.

I am sure talk like this makes Israel's trigger finger a little more itchy.

 

[Linda64]

I am sure talk like this makes Israel's trigger finger a little more itchy.

The annihilation of Israel has always been the plan of every Arab/Muslim nation in the Mideast. It is part of the Palestinian Covenant that Arafat never had any intention of removing. But God will prevail. Amen!

Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Genesis 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Genesis 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
Genesis 15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The covenant was made with the seed of Abraham through Isaac, not Ishmael.

 

[KenH]

Ahmadinejad had no power to make good on his threat. Ignore him.

 

[Andre]

The annihilation of Israel has always been the plan of every Arab/Muslim nation in the Mideast. It is part of the Palestinian Covenant that Arafat never had any intention of removing. But God will prevail. Amen!

Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Genesis 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Genesis 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
Genesis 15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The covenant was made with the seed of Abraham through Isaac, not Ishmael.

I am in no way suggesting that Israel should not exist, but I do think a proper understanding of the Scriptures entails no "preferential" treatment for Israel. Stated another way, I believe that God never intended to give the "land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" in perpetuity.

With the renewal of the covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I believe that Paul sees the covenant promise of the "land" is to be seen as a foreshadowing of the deeper promise:

God promised Israel this Land, but the "real" promise underlying this is not "the land of Palestine for the Jews" but rather "the entire redeemed cosmos for all human beings".

There are lots of other arguments that could be made. But I think the bottom line is that God's promise of Palestine for the Jews was never intended to be given Israel forever.

In the words of NT Wright:

The New Testament itself, of course, from start to finish sees the gospel of Jesus as the fulfilment of all that God had promised to his people in the Old. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus expounded to the two puzzled disciples all the things in the scriptures which concerned himself. That remains the foundation of Christian existence.

One of the specific things on which the New Testament insists, again and again, is that in the life, death and supremely the resurrection of Jesus the promised new age has dawned. The return from exile has happened. ‘All the promises of God’, says Paul in 2 Corinthians 1.20, ‘find their “yes” in him.’ This is in fact the great Return, even though it doesn’t look like people had thought it would. Instead of Israel as a political entity emerging from political exile, we are invited in the gospel to see Israel-in-person, the true king, emerging from the exile of death itself into God’s new day. That is the underlying rationale for the mission to the Gentiles: God has finally done for Israel what he was going to do for Israel, so now it’s time for the Gentiles to come in. That, too, is the underlying rationale for the abolition of the food laws and the holy status of the land of Israel: a new day has dawned in God’s purposes, and the symbols of the previous day are put aside, not because they were a bad thing, now happily rejected, but because they were the appropriate preparatory stages in God’s plan, and have now done their work.

None of this, of course, should be twisted by anyone to claim that I have any sympathy at all for the destruction of the nation of Israel. But we do need to get our theology right to get our politics right.

 

[Linda64]

I am in no way suggesting that Israel should not exist, but I do think a proper understanding of the Scriptures entails no "preferential" treatment for Israel. Stated another way, I believe that God never intended to give the "land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates" in perpetuity.

With the renewal of the covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I believe that Paul sees the covenant promise of the "land" is to be seen as a foreshadowing of the deeper promise:

God promised Israel this Land, but the "real" promise underlying this is not "the land of Palestine for the Jews" but rather "the entire redeemed cosmos for all human beings".

There are lots of other arguments that could be made. But I think the bottom line is that God's promise of Palestine for the Jews was never intended to be given Israel forever.

In the words of NT Wright:

The New Testament itself, of course, from start to finish sees the gospel of Jesus as the fulfilment of all that God had promised to his people in the Old. On the road to Emmaus, Jesus expounded to the two puzzled disciples all the things in the scriptures which concerned himself. That remains the foundation of Christian existence.

One of the specific things on which the New Testament insists, again and again, is that in the life, death and supremely the resurrection of Jesus the promised new age has dawned. The return from exile has happened. ‘All the promises of God’, says Paul in 2 Corinthians 1.20, ‘find their “yes” in him.’ This is in fact the great Return, even though it doesn’t look like people had thought it would. Instead of Israel as a political entity emerging from political exile, we are invited in the gospel to see Israel-in-person, the true king, emerging from the exile of death itself into God’s new day. That is the underlying rationale for the mission to the Gentiles: God has finally done for Israel what he was going to do for Israel, so now it’s time for the Gentiles to come in. That, too, is the underlying rationale for the abolition of the food laws and the holy status of the land of Israel: a new day has dawned in God’s purposes, and the symbols of the previous day are put aside, not because they were a bad thing, now happily rejected, but because they were the appropriate preparatory stages in God’s plan, and have now done their work.

None of this, of course, should be twisted by anyone to claim that I have any sympathy at all for the destruction of the nation of Israel. But we do need to get our theology right to get our politics right.

In other words, Andre, you are saying and NT Wright is also saying that God lied in Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15:18-21; and Genesis 21:12. In Genesis 13:15:

Genesis 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Are you going to say that the land Abram saw wasn't the land God promised? How can you trust a God Who doesn't keep His promises? Where else did God lie, Andre?

This is not politics, this is Bible.

 

[Andre]

In other words, Andre, you are saying and NT Wright is also saying that God lied in Genesis 12:1-3; Genesis 15:18-21; and Genesis 21:12. In Genesis 13:15:

Genesis 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Are you going to say that the land Abram saw wasn't the land God promised? How can you trust a God Who doesn't keep His promises? Where else did God lie, Andre?

This is not politics, this is Bible.

Please do not use the "you are saying God lied" argument as if that establishes yout point. I could use the same argument against your position and claim that you are saying God "lied" when he said this:

20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

I could argue as follows:

1. You agree that the land is a promise that God made;

2. God says in 2 cor 1:20 that all the promises have been fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ;

3. You say that there is a promise that is not fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - that the Jews still needed to be restored to Palestine as of pre 1948.

4. Therefore you are saying that God lied when he inspired Paul to write 2 Corinthians 1:20

And there are other texts (as in Galatians) that make it clear that after the resurrection of Jesus, the Jew and the Gentile are member of one family. And this cannot mean "special" treatment for the Jews, such as land for them and them only.

In respect to Genesis 13:15, God's promise seems to mean one thing - that the land will be given to the Jews forever - but in the strange and wonderful purposes of God the promise actually means something else, that the entire redeemed cosmos (not just Palestine) is the inheritance of all who are "true Israel" (not just Jews).

Perhaps you will argue that God would not say "x" and mean "y". But the Scriptures are filled with all sorts of examples of this. We know from Romans that Paul argues extensively that the old Testament promises that seem to have been made to "genetic Israel" are really actually made to "Israel according to the Spirit". For example, this from Romans 9:

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children

This text show that things do not alway mean what they seem to mean. and I believe that Genesis 13:15 is a prime example.

 

[LadyEagle]

Methinks this has turned into another "replacement theology" thread, as usual.

When God says "forever" He means forever. When anyone says God didn't mean forever when He said forever, they are twisting Scripture to fit their own opinions.

And if I were a betting person, Andre probably doesn't believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ sitting on the throne of David ruling with a rod of iron in Jerusalem, either. It goes with the territory.

 

[ajg1959]

Ahmadinejad had no power to make good on his threat. Ignore him.

As reported by the liberal media that hates Bush, and wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear, and that Bush's foreign policy is aggressive in nature......just so they can get a democrat elected.

Iranians, and most Arabs hate us, and they hate Israel even more. Do not believe the liberal propaganda machine that is intent on getting a liberal elected even it means lying about threats to our national security,

AJ

 

[Andre]

Methinks this has turned into another "replacement theology" thread, as usual.

When God says "forever" He means forever. When anyone says God didn't mean forever when He said forever, they are twisting Scripture to fit their own opinions.

Please do not ascribe motive while not engaging my argument. My argument is what it is and should be responded to rather than dismissed as "twisting". Besides, I can easily offer counterexamples to your "forever means forever" statement. From 1 Samuel 27:

When Achish asked, "Where did you go raiding today?" David would say, "Against the Negev of Judah" or "Against the Negev of Jerahmeel" or "Against the Negev of the Kenites." 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, "They might inform on us and say, 'This is what David did.' " And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, "He has become so odious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant forever

Is David presently the servant of Achish?

Now this use of forever is arguably a different kind of use. But it certains disproves the generalization that "forever always means forever". If you are going to accuse me of twisting then you will need to level that same accusation at Paul. Remember what he says in Romans 9:

"23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one

Paul is saying here what he has being saying at numerous points in the book of Romans - that many of the promises that, on a superficial reading, seem to be about "Israel according to the flesh" are actually for a second Israel, "Israel according to the Spirit".

There are lots of other texts in Romans alone that show that to take Genesis 13:15 as a perpetual promise to "Israel according to the flesh" is entirely unworkable in light of Paul.

It is exceedingly risky to engage in overly-literalistic, atomistic exegesis. The Scriptures need to be read as a whole, and it needs to be acknowledged that God makes promises which turn out to have a different meaning altogether than what they seem to mean. There are many examples of this - not least the promise to use Israel to bless the nations. What did God actually do in respect to that promise? He used Jesus, acting as "Israel rolled up into one person" to satisfy that promise.

If we applied overly rigid modes of exegesis, we would miss this and insist that national Israel itself must be the means by which the nations are blessed - as God so plainly promises in the book of Genesis.

And if I were a betting person, Andre probably doesn't believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ sitting on the throne of David ruling with a rod of iron in Jerusalem, either. It goes with the territory.

I have no opinion on this.

 

[Andre]

Iranians, and most Arabs hate us, and they hate Israel even more.

How do you know this? If by "us" you mean the American government, then you might be right. However, I have heard many reports about how Iranian people generally like American people, and are able to distinguish how they feel about the American government and how they feel about the general citizenry.

 

[ajg1959]

How do you know this? If by "us" you mean the American government, then you might be right. However, I have heard many reports about how Iranian people generally like American people, and are able to distinguish how they feel about the American government and how they feel about the general citizenry.

By "us" I meant Christians.....funny you didnt know that "us" is christians.

Wonder why that is?

AJ

 

[Andre]

By "us" I meant Christians.....funny you didnt know that "us" is christians.

Wonder why that is?

AJ

I guess the reason I thought "us" means Americans is that I understand how to use context properly.

You posted:

As reported by the liberal media that hates Bush, and wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear,...

Any person applying contextual reasoning will conclude that you are talking about Americans in general when you use the word "us". It makes no sense to see "us" as being Christians, since the "liberal media" (as you see it) is clearly not interested in telling Christians and only Christians that they have nothing to fear.

When was the last time you heard the "liberal media" in any way directing its "opinions" about the level of threat that Ahmadinejad poses to Christians as opposed to Americans in general?

 

[ajg1959]

I guess the reason I thought "us" means Americans is that I understand how to use context properly.

You posted:


Any person applying contextual reasoning will conclude that you are talking about Americans in general when you use the word "us". It makes no sense to see "us" as being Christians, since the "liberal media" (as you see it) is clearly not interested in telling Christians and only Christians that they have nothing to fear.

When was the last time you heard the "liberal media" in any way directing its "opinions" about the level of threat that Ahmadinejad poses to Christians as opposed to Americans in general?

They may very well hate our government, (as a Canadian, I would imagine that you dont care much for it either), but they hate us first because we are christians....even if our government were putting millions in their pockets, and supplying all of their needs, they would still hate us because we are not a muslim nation.

AJ

 

[Dragoon68]

He keeps up his yappin somebody is gunna punch his lights out don't you think?

I've half expected Israel to do something for a long time.

It reminds me of Saddam's "yappin" that helped bring wrath upon himself.

 

[Linda64]

They may very well hate our government, (as a Canadian, I would imagine that you dont care much for it either), but they hate us first because we are christians....even if our government were putting millions in their pockets, and supplying all of their needs, they would still hate us because we are not a muslim nation.

AJ

They also hate the United States because we are allies with Israel...it all goes back to the Abrahamic Covenant..."I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse him that curseth thee..." They (the Arab/Muslim nations) call the United States "The Great Satan"

 

[just-want-peace]

They also hate the United States because we are allies with Israel...it all goes back to the Abrahamic Covenant..."I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse him that curseth thee..." They (the Arab/Muslim nations) call the United States "The Great Satan"

I really do find it sadly amusing that there are so many Christians that won't just accept what God said without trying to "spiritualize" the Word to fit their own pre-conceived beliefs.

The whole Scripture is so much easier to understand if we just take God at His word, rather than trying to find all the "hidden" meanings.

One wonders how the Word is supposed to be understandable by the average Joe if you need a seminary course to read it and glean any info there-from.

 

[Linda64]

I really do find it sadly amusing that there are so many Christians that won't just accept what God said without trying to "spiritualize" the Word to fit their own pre-conceived beliefs.

The whole Scripture is so much easier to understand if we just take God at His word, rather than trying to find all the "hidden" meanings.

One wonders how the Word is supposed to be understandable by the average Joe if you need a seminary course to read it and glean any info there-from.

Amen! I agree 100%

 

[KenH]

Iranians, and most Arabs hate us

1. I assume you know that Iranians are not Arabs.

2. Most Iranians, especially those under the age of 30 like the West quite a lot. Don't confuse the Shiite clerics with the average Iranian.