Jews 'partly responsible' for their troubles: Churchill

[LiberalNation]

Wonder why this is only now being published.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070311/wl_uk_afp/britainjudaismhistory;_ylt=AiHMNje.4noHXY6TZffR6GJ vaA8F

LONDON (AFP) - The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.

Churchill made the claim in an article entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution" written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.

He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article read.

"It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.

"These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution -- that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

The article adds: "The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different'.

"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."

Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as "sober, industrious, law-abiding" and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.

"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man," he wrote.

The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university's archive of Churchill's papers.

At the time, Churchill's secretary advised him it would be "inadvisable" to publish it and it never saw the light of day.

Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002.

[CSM]

Wonder why this is only now being published.

Guess you didn't read the whole thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070311/wl_uk_afp/britainjudaismhistory;_ylt=AiHMNje.4noHXY6TZffR6GJ vaA8F

LONDON (AFP) - The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.

Churchill made the claim in an article entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution" written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.

He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article read.

"It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.

"These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution -- that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

The article adds: "The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different'.

"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."

Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as "sober, industrious, law-abiding" and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.

"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man," he wrote.

The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university's archive of Churchill's papers.

At the time, Churchill's secretary advised him it would be "inadvisable" to publish it and it never saw the light of day.

Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002.

His secretary advised him not to publish it, he does not and now some asshat is trying to use it to make some point. I love politics!

[KarlMarx]

So, basically, Winston Churchill said that Jews found opportunity regardless of where they went. They accomplished said opportunity and success by hard work and diligence.

Whenever you're successful, others become envious or jealous.

That is essentially what Sir Winston Churchill meant.

We see it today, also. The Israelis have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, they also offer democracy to their citizens. For this, the Arabs hate them, and will always hate them. That's because the Arabs haven't made any significant accomplishments since the 13th century.

The apologists for the Arabs and their savagery towards the Jews call the success of the Jews "unfair". But what is unfair about reaping the benefits of your hard work?

[Dilloduck]

So, basically, Winston Churchill said that Jews found opportunity regardless of where they went. They accomplished said opportunity and success by hard work and diligence.

Whenever you're successful, others become envious or jealous.

That is essentially what Sir Winston Churchill meant.

We see it today, also. The Israelis have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, they also offer democracy to their citizens. For this, the Arabs hate them, and will always hate them. That's because the Arabs haven't made any significant accomplishments since the 13th century.

The apologists for the Arabs and their savagery towards the Jews call the success of the Jews "unfair". But what is unfair about reaping the benefits of your hard work?

I think it's the refusal to be absorbed.

[5stringJeff]

Where's RWA when you need him?

[mundame]

I think it's the refusal to be absorbed.

Very likely that's part of it, and that issue is with us today with other population groups that refuse to assimilate.

Envy is another real factor -- German Jews were VERY well off relative to most Germans, mostly professional people.

A third factor Ferguson (War of the World) is writing about now is rapid change, namely increase and penetration of the society: Jews were in-migrating strongly into Germany in the 1920s from Poland and Russia, and intermarriage had GREATLY increased.


There may have also been a problem with the sex industry (characterized at the time as "white slavery"). Jews were accused in Germany and Austria of running it disproportionately: I do not know if that was true, but I am trying to find out from the histories of the era.

[Hugh Lincoln]

So, basically, Winston Churchill said that Jews found opportunity regardless of where they went. They accomplished said opportunity and success by hard work and diligence.

Whenever you're successful, others become envious or jealous.

That is essentially what Sir Winston Churchill meant.

We see it today, also. The Israelis have one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East, they also offer democracy to their citizens. For this, the Arabs hate them, and will always hate them. That's because the Arabs haven't made any significant accomplishments since the 13th century.

The apologists for the Arabs and their savagery towards the Jews call the success of the Jews "unfair". But what is unfair about reaping the benefits of your hard work?

You know, several years ago, I was right here. The Jews are hated because they're smart and clever and successful. Sure, to some extent. But KM, I hope you'll go beyond this and see that for white gentiles, it's this, and more. As framed by the Jews, when we're successful, it's because we're "capitalist oppressors" and "racists." When THEY are successful, it's because they're smart.

Ahem. Have you EVER heard a Jew defend white success on grounds that... we earned it?

Even partly?

MEANWHILE!

When whites suffer, if they do at all, it's by their own hand.

When Jews suffer, it's because others are irrationally anti-Semitic.

BULLSHIT!

Jews can't have it both ways. But they do. 'Cause they're Jews. Yet another reason to be wary of this curious people.

[KarlMarx]

You know, several years ago, I was right here. The Jews are hated because they're smart and clever and successful. Sure, to some extent. But KM, I hope you'll go beyond this and see that for white gentiles, it's this, and more. As framed by the Jews, when we're successful, it's because we're "capitalist oppressors" and "racists." When THEY are successful, it's because they're smart.

Ahem. Have you EVER heard a Jew defend white success on grounds that... we earned it?

Even partly?

MEANWHILE!

When whites suffer, if they do at all, it's by their own hand.

When Jews suffer, it's because others are irrationally anti-Semitic.

BULLSHIT!

Jews can't have it both ways. But they do. 'Cause they're Jews. Yet another reason to be wary of this curious people.
You make it seem as if the Jews are creatures from another galaxy who landed here on earth in their menorah shaped spacecraft and are bent on world domination.

If the Jews ran the world, why do cheeseburgers and ham exist? If they really ran the world, we'd all be eating potato pancakes and drinking seltzer.

I'll anticipate your answer, Jews are in love with money... right. Well, I have news for you, so is everyone else and just as much as Jews.

I'll give you a good example. You didn't think Anna Nicole Smith, the ex-stripper turned millionaire married that old coot because she had a thing for geriatric guys do you? And her string of lovers aren't fighting over her baby because they suddenly feel an over powering urge to be parents, do you?

Of course not. When it comes to money, everyone is of the same religion (I'd like to take credit for that aphorism, but Voltaire beat me to it).

I know a few Jewish people. They worry about their kids, complain about high gas prices and the weather, root for the home team and are at war with the crabgrass on their lawns .... just like the rest of us.

The problems of the world are mostly caused by stupidity not conspiracy. Stupidity is responsible for more evil in this world than malice.

[Hugh Lincoln]

You make it seem as if the Jews are creatures from another galaxy who landed here on earth in their menorah shaped spacecraft and are bent on world domination.

If the Jews ran the world, why do cheeseburgers and ham exist? If they really ran the world, we'd all be eating potato pancakes and drinking seltzer.

I'll anticipate your answer, Jews are in love with money... right. Well, I have news for you, so is everyone else and just as much as Jews.

I'll give you a good example. You didn't think Anna Nicole Smith, the ex-stripper turned millionaire married that old coot because she had a thing for geriatric guys do you? And her string of lovers aren't fighting over her baby because they suddenly feel an over powering urge to be parents, do you?

Of course not. When it comes to money, everyone is of the same religion (I'd like to take credit for that aphorism, but Voltaire beat me to it).

I know a few Jewish people. They worry about their kids, complain about high gas prices and the weather, root for the home team and are at war with the crabgrass on their lawns .... just like the rest of us.

The problems of the world are mostly caused by stupidity not conspiracy. Stupidity is responsible for more evil in this world than malice.

You're resorting to weak arguments, and setting up ones I don't make. Nobody has ever said that "Jews run the world," but anyone pointing to disproportionate control is often dealt with by being tagged thusly. I wouldn't say "all liberals are child molesters," but in general, I oppose their policies, and that's legitmate.

Jewish "love of money" isn't really quite my objection, it's their love of power and control over the gentile societies in which they live. Here in the U.S., they demonstrate that power through turning our domestic policy liberal and our foreign policy pro-Israel.

Jews are a competitive group, and their actions do not often mean a better life for us as white gentiles. This competition's been going on for centuries. My hope is that white gentiles wake up to what's going on. Presently, we're all conditioned to either think Jews are "just folks" like us, or extra-moral super-beings irrationally disliked for their smarts and riches. That's not the whole story.

Check out Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique" for a treatment of this issue that will open eyes.

[LiberalNation]

What about Jews that are White and Jews. Since you mentioned it. White is a race/color, Jew is a religion and a cultural people.

[Gunny]

You're resorting to weak arguments, and setting up ones I don't make. Nobody has ever said that "Jews run the world," but anyone pointing to disproportionate control is often dealt with by being tagged thusly. I wouldn't say "all liberals are child molesters," but in general, I oppose their policies, and that's legitmate.

Jewish "love of money" isn't really quite my objection, it's their love of power and control over the gentile societies in which they live. Here in the U.S., they demonstrate that power through turning our domestic policy liberal and our foreign policy pro-Israel.

Jews are a competitive group, and their actions do not often mean a better life for us as white gentiles. This competition's been going on for centuries. My hope is that white gentiles wake up to what's going on. Presently, we're all conditioned to either think Jews are "just folks" like us, or extra-moral super-beings irrationally disliked for their smarts and riches. That's not the whole story.

Check out Kevin MacDonald's "Culture of Critique" for a treatment of this issue that will open eyes.

So, you REAL problem with Jews is that they take care of themselves as a group, and you're jealous because white gentiles don't?

While I can certainly see where white gentiles deserve the criticism, I can hardly see why how you can blame the Jews for doing what you think white gentiles ought to.

[mundame]

So, you REAL problem with Jews is that they take care of themselves as a group, and you're jealous because white gentiles don't?

While I can certainly see where white gentiles deserve the criticism, I can hardly see why how you can blame the Jews for doing what you think white gentiles ought to.


Very interesting statements. I think it's getting time to get serious about that. Why should we actually COLLUDE with blacks and Muslims and other minority groups who say everything is the fault of whites and to be white is evil?

This is a mistake, IMO.

[Dilloduck]

Very interesting statements. I think it's getting time to get serious about that. Why should we actually COLLUDE with blacks and Muslims and other minority groups who say everything is the fault of whites and to be white is evil?

This is a mistake, IMO.

Only Hitler and American whites are evil. Maybe a few Brits too.

[Hugh Lincoln]

So, you REAL problem with Jews is that they take care of themselves as a group, and you're jealous because white gentiles don't?

Yes, correct.

But you've given it the best possible spin from their side. If you agree with your own spin, you'd have no problem with white gentiles taking care of themselves, and using AT LEAST EQUIVALENT means to advance their interests. That's where it gets sticky. As white gentiles, we like things like military action. Jews like sneaky deception. So we're not really evenly matched. They can always make us look like bad guys by pointing to Nazi violence. But we can never do the same to them, by pointing to Mossad manipulation. That's frustrating to me!

[Kathianne]

Wonder why this is only now being published.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070311/wl_uk_afp/britainjudaismhistory;_ylt=AiHMNje.4noHXY6TZffR6GJ vaA8F

LONDON (AFP) - The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.

Churchill made the claim in an article entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution" written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.

He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article read.

"It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.

"These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution -- that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

The article adds: "The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different'.

"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."

Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as "sober, industrious, law-abiding" and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.

"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man," he wrote.

The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university's archive of Churchill's papers.

At the time, Churchill's secretary advised him it would be "inadvisable" to publish it and it never saw the light of day.

Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002.

So where is the article? I mean the one that Churchill 'wrote?'

[chum43]

Jews(and I mean jewish leaders and such, not individual people) are self-victimizing, for as long as they've been in existence they've been portraying themselves on a large scale as the victims. It's a lot like blacks have been since the civil rights movement, everything bad that happens to them is about them being a hated race. The holocaust was hardly a genocide and yet the jews fight tooth and nail to take complete credit(whatever you would call it) for being the only victims of the holocaust... the truth is that compared to the Jewish population density in poland, the numbers of jews killed to everyone else killed during the holocaust are just about even. yet all you ever hear is 6 million jews, somewhere between 15 and 20 million people were executed during the holocaust. Now I hold no grudge against Jewish people, but jewish leaders continually take the victim position, just like most groups of people when they can pull it off, they've just been pulling it off longer and more wide spread than any other group. When you can convince people you are the victim, you do... thats the way it works.

[nevadamedic]

You know, several years ago, I was right here. The Jews are hated because they're smart and clever and successful. Sure, to some extent. But KM, I hope you'll go beyond this and see that for white gentiles, it's this, and more. As framed by the Jews, when we're successful, it's because we're "capitalist oppressors" and "racists." When THEY are successful, it's because they're smart.

Ahem. Have you EVER heard a Jew defend white success on grounds that... we earned it?


Even partly?

MEANWHILE!

When whites suffer, if they do at all, it's by their own hand.

When Jews suffer, it's because others are irrationally anti-Semitic.

BULLSHIT!

Jews can't have it both ways. But they do. 'Cause they're Jews. Yet another reason to be wary of this curious people.

You must be one of Bob Matthew's followers.

[nevadamedic]

Jews(and I mean jewish leaders and such, not individual people) are self-victimizing, for as long as they've been in existence they've been portraying themselves on a large scale as the victims. It's a lot like blacks have been since the civil rights movement, everything bad that happens to them is about them being a hated race. The holocaust was hardly a genocide and yet the jews fight tooth and nail to take complete credit(whatever you would call it) for being the only victims of the holocaust... the truth is that compared to the Jewish population density in poland, the numbers of jews killed to everyone else killed during the holocaust are just about even. yet all you ever hear is 6 million jews, somewhere between 15 and 20 million people were executed during the holocaust. Now I hold no grudge against Jewish people, but jewish leaders continually take the victim position, just like most groups of people when they can pull it off, they've just been pulling it off longer and more wide spread than any other group. When you can convince people you are the victim, you do... thats the way it works.

Jew's have been persecuted for hundered's of years for their beliefs. It didn't all start with WW2. The have a right to play the victims because they are. They are the victims of a cruel and hate filled society.

[chum43]

well that is the attitude that allows victims to play victim even when they don't deserve to... and I know it started before ww2, but it's the best example... they weren't victims of ww2, the human race was the victim of ww2, jews just take all the credit for it.

[nevadamedic]

well that is the attitude that allows victims to play victim even when they don't deserve to... and I know it started before ww2, but it's the best example... they weren't victims of ww2, the human race was the victim of ww2, jews just take all the credit for it.

No, they were the victims. If you saw any of Hitler's election speech's or any of his major speech's they target Jew's.

[chum43]

I think we can agree what hitler said and what history actually reflects are two separate things... He used hatred of the jews to get people behind him, but they were not targeted over any other group, about a third of the people executed during the holocaust were jews, and about a third of the population at the time in that area were jews, thats not an attempt at genocide.

[nevadamedic]

I think we can agree what hitler said and what history actually reflects are two separate things... He used hatred of the jews to get people behind him, but they were not targeted over any other group, about a third of the people executed during the holocaust were jews, and about a third of the population at the time in that area were jews, thats not an attempt at genocide.

Yes it was, we just stopped him before it got worse. If he had the oppertunity all the Jew's in the world would be dead.

[chum43]

then why waste time killing 15+ million non-jews when he could have simply gotten every single jew in the area instead... they killed anyone who wasn't a nazi soldier, thats the truth... it wasn't a jew genocide... even nazi's needed a distinct enemy they believe deserved to die to go on a massacre, jews were the scape goat, but they weren't in reality the target.

[chum43]

If he had the oppertunity all the Jew's in the world would be dead.

that is true, but my point is so would all other non-nazi's, Jews weren't the exclusive targets, even though that is what they claim.

[TheSage]

So, you REAL problem with Jews is that they take care of themselves as a group, and you're jealous because white gentiles don't?

While I can certainly see where white gentiles deserve the criticism, I can hardly see why how you can blame the Jews for doing what you think white gentiles ought to.

When whites do it they're called racists. That's exactly the double standard the jews have created and perpetuated throughout the western world.

And the judaism is not a religion. It's tribalism. They are GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, according to their own beliefs. It's a religion based around the supremacy and chosenness of the jewish people. No different from white supremacy, just more politically correct.

[TheSage]

Jew's have been persecuted for hundered's of years for their beliefs. It didn't all start with WW2. The have a right to play the victims because they are. They are the victims of a cruel and hate filled society.



No. They have contempt for non-jews, and use their leverage in many industries to turn the leaders of goy societies against the people. ANd sometimes it pisses people off.

And for you confused christians who are dying to chime in with "But they are the chosen people", actual christianity teaches a new covenant for all people. According to actual christianity, the path to salvation is through jesus christ even for jews. It's not our christian duty to become christian zionists. That's a bunch of fucked up crap.

[Hugh Lincoln]

And the judaism is not a religion. It's tribalism. They are GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, according to their own beliefs. It's a religion based around the supremacy and chosenness of the jewish people. No different from white supremacy, just more politically correct.

BINGO.

Some would even call Judaism a race-cult.

Kevin MacDonald points out that the Nazis might actually have been TRYING TO COPY THE JEWS, if you can wrap your head around that one!

[Doniston]

Wonder why this is only now being published.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070311/wl_uk_afp/britainjudaismhistory;_ylt=AiHMNje.4noHXY6TZffR6GJ vaA8F

LONDON (AFP) - The Second World War prime minister Winston Churchill argued that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer" in an article publicised for the first time Sunday.

Churchill made the claim in an article entitled "How The Jews Can Combat Persecution" written in 1937, three years before he started leading the country.

He outlined a new wave of anti-Semitism sweeping across Europe and the United States, which was followed by the deaths of millions of Jews in the Holocaust under the German Nazi regime.

"It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts," the article read.

"It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity.

"These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.

"For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution -- that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

The article adds: "The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different'.

"He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed."

Elsewhere, Churchill praised Jews as "sober, industrious, law-abiding" and urged Britons to stand up for the race against persecution.

"There is no virtue in a tame acquiescence in evil. To protest against cruelty and wrong, and to strive to end them, is the mark of a man," he wrote.

The article was discovered by Cambridge University historian Richard Toye in the university's archive of Churchill's papers.

At the time, Churchill's secretary advised him it would be "inadvisable" to publish it and it never saw the light of day.

Churchill was voted the greatest Briton ever in a nationwide poll held by the BBC in 2002. I saw this months ago on another forum. It is brought up periodically

And to a very minor degree it is true. Simply because of their own philosophy.

[5stringJeff]

And for you confused christians who are dying to chime in with "But they are the chosen people", actual christianity teaches a new covenant for all people. According to actual christianity, the path to salvation is through jesus christ even for jews. It's not our christian duty to become christian zionists. That's a bunch of fucked up crap.

While the Bible teaches salvation through Christ alone, the Abrahamic covenant, which established Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people, was never cancelled, nor have all of its promises been fulfilled yet in history.

[Dilloduck]

While the Bible teaches salvation through Christ alone, the Abrahamic covenant, which established Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people, was never cancelled, nor have all of its promises been fulfilled yet in history.

Where did Jesus mention anything about there being another way to salvation?

[5stringJeff]

Where did Jesus mention anything about there being another way to salvation?

He didn't. The Abrahamic covenant was not about salvation.

[Dilloduck]

He didn't. The Abrahamic covenant was not about salvation.

Ahhh I get it---It's an earthly thing. Countries and peoples who are nice to Israel will receive Gods' blessing as the obedient Jews will.

[5stringJeff]

Ahhh I get it---It's an earthly thing. Countries and peoples who are nice to Israel will receive Gods' blessing as the obedient Jews will.

More to the point, Israel's land promises, given to Abraham, have yet to be fulfilled. So attempting to oppose them would be attempting to oppose God. However, if I understand the Bible correctly (which I think I do a decent job of, usually), those promises will be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom.

[Dilloduck]

More to the point, Israel's land promises, given to Abraham, have yet to be fulfilled. So attempting to oppose them would be attempting to oppose God. However, if I understand the Bible correctly (which I think I do a decent job of, usually), those promises will be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom.

Right--after the Messiah appears.

[TheSage]

More to the point, Israel's land promises, given to Abraham, have yet to be fulfilled. So attempting to oppose them would be attempting to oppose God. However, if I understand the Bible correctly (which I think I do a decent job of, usually), those promises will be fulfilled in the Millennial Kingdom.



Jeff. This is a twisted and ignorant interpretation. You don't understand the bible correctly. If you did, you'd realize that a New COvenant for all people necessarily implies the old covenants are gone.

THis is premillenial dispensationalism and it's a bunch of made up crap with no biblical support.




http://www.wrfnet.org/articles/printarticle.asp?ID=1304
I love my dispensational brothers and see them as victims rather than enemies --even those who propagate the system, even those who speak evil accusations of Covenant Theology. Why do I think the dispensational system is so terrible? Let me explain.

Jesus is the center and ultimate goal of all of creation and redemption. He is the second Adam, the head of a New Creation (1 Cor. 15:45). All the promises of God find their “Yes” in Him (2 Cor. 1:20). The salvation He has brought to the world is what the ancient prophets longed to look into and proclaimed (1Pet. 1:10-11, Acts 26:22). To put it another way, God has had one purpose from the beginning: to redeem a people for His glory through Jesus our Messiah. The glorious redemption through Jesus is what redemptive history is all about. This has always been the plan of God. The “fullness of the ages” has come upon us (1 Cor. 10:11).

Dispensationalism teaches otherwise. According to this error there are two distinct people of God, National/Physical Israel and the Church. The Church and Israel are two separate peoples of God with two separate purposes, they say. They are not to be confused, they say. According to classic dispensational teaching, the Church was not spoken of in the Old Testament, rather it is part of the “Great Parenthesis,” the period of time between the first and second comings of which the ancient prophets knew nothing.

“Plan A” is national and physical Israel. (Hereafter I will use the word “Ethnic” Israel –ethnic coming from the Greek word “ethnos” which encompasses the ideas of nation and people.) Classic dispensationalism says that if ethnic Israel had accepted Jesus as Messiah, the Davidic kingdom would have been established on the spot. Since Jesus was rejected and crucified, the kingdom was postponed and salvation has come to the Gentiles. Accordingly, the Church, made up of Jews and Gentiles, is not to be confused with “Israel.” This is substantially the teaching within Messianic Judaism, except some there teach that Jewish believers are not part of the “church”, they are not even “Christians” (and this is not just a matter of semantics), but are the spiritual remnant of Israel. Someday God will reinstate “Plan A” and again focus on an earthly Davidic Kingdom centered in national Israel. Gentile Christians have no right to the name “Israel”, and according to some extremists, Gentile Christians do not even have a covenant with God, since the New Covenant is with Israel and Judah!

Worse still, many dispensationalists believe the Temple will be set up again and the sacrifices will be reinstated after Jesus returns. But Hebrews says the old system is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Jesus fulfilled it all.

Dispensationalism teaches otherwise. According to this error there are two distinct people of God, National/Physical Israel and the Church. The Church and Israel are two separate peoples of God with two separate purposes, they say. They are not to be confused, they say. According to classic dispensational teaching, the Church was not spoken of in the Old Testament, rather it is part of the “Great Parenthesis,” the period of time between the first and second comings of which the ancient prophets knew nothing.

[TheSage]

While the Bible teaches salvation through Christ alone, the Abrahamic covenant, which established Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people, was never cancelled, nor have all of its promises been fulfilled yet in history.

I believe it was.

All promises are fulfilled in christ. This is what christians actually believe. You've been confused into supporting the empire of the antichrist.

hebrews 8:13
http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-13.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: God made this new promise and showed that the first promise was outdated. What is outdated and aging will soon disappear. (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: When he says, A new agreement, he has made the first agreement old. But anything which is getting old and past use will not be seen much longer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: In that he says New, he has made the first old; but that which grows old and aged is near disappearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: By using the words, "a new Covenant," He has made the first one obsolete; but whatever is decaying and showing signs of old age is not far from disappearing altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and groweth old is ready to vanish away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: In that he says, "A new covenant," he has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: in the saying 'new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing.

[5stringJeff]

I believe it was.

All promises are fulfilled in christ. This is what christians actually believe. You've been confused into supporting the empire of the antichrist.

hebrews 8:13
http://bible.cc/hebrews/8-13.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB ©1995)

I know very well what Christians actually believe. The new covenant of Christ canceled the Mosiac covenant of Law. It did not cancel the Abrahamic covenant, which was given by God unconditionally:

Gen. 12:1-3: "Now the LORD said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"

Nowhere is Abraham called to do anything. Paul mentions that Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (cf. Romans 4).

God confirmed that He alone was responsible for the successful outcome of the covenant when He alone passed between the animal halves (a way of saying, 'may this happen to me if I don't fulfill what I am promising.')

Gen 15:17-21: "When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.'"

This has not yet been fulfilled; therefore, it must be fulfilled sometime in the future.

The Mosiac covenant, on the other hand, was conditional in nature. If the Israelites obeyed God's command, then He would bless them; likewise, if the Israelites didn't obey, he would punish them:

Deut. 11:26-28: "'See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known.'"

Deut 28:1-2, 15: "And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God... But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you."

Moreover, Hebrews 8, which you quote, talks about the priesthood. There was no priesthood established in the Abrahamic covenant, only in the Mosaic covenant. In fact, Paul specifically states that the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant in Hebrews 8:8-9: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord."

In summary, the Mosaic covenant was canceled by the new covenant in Christ; the Abrahamic covenant was not, is is yet to be fulfilled.

(All scripture from the ESV)

[TheSage]

I know very well what Christians actually believe. The new covenant of Christ canceled the Mosiac covenant of Law. It did not cancel the Abrahamic covenant, which was given by God unconditionally:

Gen. 12:1-3: "Now the LORD said to Abram, 'Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.'"

Nowhere is Abraham called to do anything. Paul mentions that Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (cf. Romans 4).

God confirmed that He alone was responsible for the successful outcome of the covenant when He alone passed between the animal halves (a way of saying, 'may this happen to me if I don't fulfill what I am promising.')

Gen 15:17-21: "When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.'"

This has not yet been fulfilled; therefore, it must be fulfilled sometime in the future.

The Mosiac covenant, on the other hand, was conditional in nature. If the Israelites obeyed God's command, then He would bless them; likewise, if the Israelites didn't obey, he would punish them:

Deut. 11:26-28: "'See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known.'"

Deut 28:1-2, 15: "And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God... But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you."

Moreover, Hebrews 8, which you quote, talks about the priesthood. There was no priesthood established in the Abrahamic covenant, only in the Mosaic covenant. In fact, Paul specifically states that the new covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant in Hebrews 8:8-9: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord."

In summary, the Mosaic covenant was canceled by the new covenant in Christ; the Abrahamic covenant was not, is is yet to be fulfilled.
I disagree with your analysis. All promises came to fruition in jesus, including "both" covenants. I believe your differentiation of the two is made up crap.



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=11&version=31
Jeremiah 11
The Covenant Is Broken
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : 2 "Listen to the terms of this covenant and tell them to the people of Judah and to those who live in Jerusalem. 3 Tell them that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant- 4 the terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.' I said, 'Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. 5 Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'-the land you possess today."
I answered, "Amen, LORD."
6 The LORD said to me, "Proclaim all these words in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem: 'Listen to the terms of this covenant and follow them. 7 From the time I brought your forefathers up from Egypt until today, I warned them again and again, saying, "Obey me." 8 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubbornness of their evil hearts. So I brought on them all the curses of the covenant I had commanded them to follow but that they did not keep.' "

9 Then the LORD said to me, "There is a conspiracy among the people of Judah and those who live in Jerusalem. 10 They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers. 11 Therefore this is what the LORD says: 'I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them. 12 The towns of Judah and the people of Jerusalem will go and cry out to the gods to whom they burn incense, but they will not help them at all when disaster strikes. 13 You have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah; and the altars you have set up to burn incense to that shameful god Baal are as many as the streets of Jerusalem.'



Do you know what THEN means, jeff? It means it's conditional. The covenant with the forefathers was conditional.


Tell me, wise jeff. Should christians place any value on the temple in jerusalem being rebuilt? And sacrifices reconvening? Is that a good thing, according to your understanding of christian teaching? Do you even have the nuts to answer?

[nevadamedic]

that is true, but my point is so would all other non-nazi's, Jews weren't the exclusive targets, even though that is what they claim.

They were the main targets not exclusive.

[chum43]

They were the main targets not exclusive.

they were the advertised or expressed targets, yes, but if they were the actual main targets then they would have suffered the majority of the casualties, but they didn't.

[5stringJeff]

I disagree with your analysis. All promises came to fruition in jesus, including "both" covenants. I believe your differentiation of the two is made up crap.

Is that your way of saying 'nuh-uh?' 'Cause that's what it sounds like.


Do you know what THEN means, jeff? It means it's conditional. The covenant with the forefathers was conditional.

You are correct, that covenant was conditional. The problem is, Jeremiah 11 talks about the Mosaic covenant, made "when I brought them out of Egypt." (Jer. 11:4)


Tell me, wise jeff. Should christians place any value on the temple in jerusalem being rebuilt? And sacrifices reconvening? Is that a good thing, according to your understanding of christian teaching? Do you even have the nuts to answer?

I don't believe that the temple needs to be rebuilt, or that animal sacrifices, as per the Mosaic covenant, are necessary. I do believe that they will occur, because the Bible says that they will occur. So in that sense, I won't rail against these things happening, even though the Jews of today are missing the point: Messiah has already come, and Jews and Gentiles are both offered salvation through Christ.

[nevadamedic]

they were the advertised or expressed targets, yes, but if they were the actual main targets then they would have suffered the majority of the casualties, but they didn't.

They were the majority.

[TheSage]

Is that your way of saying 'nuh-uh?' 'Cause that's what it sounds like.



You are correct, that covenant was conditional. The problem is, Jeremiah 11 talks about the Mosaic covenant, made "when I brought them out of Egypt." (Jer. 11:4)



I don't believe that the temple needs to be rebuilt, or that animal sacrifices, as per the Mosaic covenant, are necessary. I do believe that they will occur, because the Bible says that they will occur. So in that sense, I won't rail against these things happening, even though the Jews of today are missing the point: Messiah has already come, and Jews and Gentiles are both offered salvation through Christ.

So do you think christians should fight to ensure the jews get their homeland, as you believed was promised to them by the unrevoked, according to you, Abrahamic covenant?

[nevadamedic]

So do you think christians should fight to ensure the jews get their homeland, as you believed was promised to them by the unrevoked, according to you, Abrahamic covenant?

Sounds like a plan.

[TheSage]

Sounds like a plan.

Yes. It's called zionism. And there's no biblical support for it.

[TheSage]

Hey Jeff. Whey does the new covenant of christ replace the Mosaic Covenant, but not the Abrahamic Covenent, in your view?

[theHawk]

While the Bible teaches salvation through Christ alone, the Abrahamic covenant, which established Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people, was never cancelled, nor have all of its promises been fulfilled yet in history.

How could it not be cancelled if salvation comes through Christ alone? If you are a Christian then you must believe that the only way into heaven is through belief in Him. The jews who reject Christ are rejecting God. We have absolutely no obligation as Christians to help, much less fight for, these people to obtain the land in Israel. Sitting on a patch of dirt in the middle east isn't going to get anyone into heaven. This is disingenous as a Christian to help these people get their "promise land" under the false pretense its going to save their eternal soul. The only way to save them is to convert them.