I don't count myself a Zionist. I'm sold out to the Jesus who revealed himself to me. The state of Israel can be praised or criticized like any nation when it does good or bad; it's in a nadir these last few years. But believing in sharing Jesus with everyone I believing in building bridges and have special concern with building bridges to and from the Jews. That is, we should all come to see Jesus as he truly is, and Jesus speaks of his people as his bride which culturally means sharing in all his human powers and titles (and all the divine potential that entails), including being the Anointeds of our generation.
Trusting nobody is a great start. I tried it but then realized I was trusting myself to do the distrusting right. I doubted everything but like Descartes realized I couldn't doubt that I was doing the doubting. Bob Dylan said you gotta serve somebody. So looking at all the things in the cosmos I could serve, I came to determine that the Jesus who revealed himself to me was the best one on all counts; and that I don't have to sweat anything anymore because I can't keep myself in his hand but he can keep me. And as Ann Coulter says of Christianity, if you can find a better offer, take it! HTH.
I don't care what you call or count yourself as, a Messianic Gentile, an Evangelical Christian or something else... I say you are a Christian Zionist.
The state of Israel can be praised or criticized; it's in a nadir
Did you know the word nadir has Arabic roots? the source of nadir is na?hir, meaning "opposite", that is the opposite of the zenith. (The word zenith itself is a modification of another Arabic word that means "the way over one's head.")
Interesting choice of words for the artificial nation mostly owned by a satanist family, the Rothschilds, committing genocide of Arab Palestinians. Right in front of our eyes.
Well, it's not very useful to answer questions if you're going to reject self-identification and claim to define all the terms, is it? What do you think I do that's Zionist? I don't have to have the same views as Scott Lively, though I don't think he's that Zionist either. Are you just larping to get me to criticize Israel? Why would Israel be such an important issue to you? You know we have a lot of people here larping to make certain things (usually Israel) look good indirectly by making their opponents look really stupid, right?
I cited people because they say reasonable things; you rejected the people without commenting on the merits of the reasonable things. If I had said the same things without quoting the people you might have interacted with the reason, but instead I thought it important to quote my sources, and you showed an ad hominem debate style twice in a row.
I agree with you that Christian Zionists, defined as favoritists toward the Jews and Israel, have been an important driver in creating Israel, so I didn't comment on it. But you act as if I didn't answer the question of why I'm a supporter when I'm not a "supporter" of the state. It stands or falls on its actions like any other nation, and I said (happening to select an Arabic word, for which I don't follow your tangent at all) that it's actions are in a low point lately (you seem not to have noticed the definition when you quoted the etymology).
So if your plan is to double down with wifebeater fallacies, refusal to agree on definitions, and ad hominems, I'm not sure this board is the place for you. I asked you what you believe about Jesus and your answer amounts to "not that" but you cannot give a positive overview of what you're committed to. A lot of people here are committed to seek the truth at all costs, and some decline to make that commitment and they wind up trusting themselves while believing they trust nobody, or committing some other basic logic contradiction. But if your arguments are full of logical fallacies why would I seek evidence that your foundational position isn't a contradiction?
I asked you what you believe about Jesus and your answer amounts to "not that"
I tried to avoid discussing Jesus because I'm convinced we have two different views on this. Very well, I'll share this with you, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be.
Let's first talk about the historical Jesus, because indeed we have evidence that this man existed.
Two billion people believe Jesus is God (you included), not a prophet, not a teacher, but literally God in human form. But, IMO, the Jesus that billions worship today is not the Jesus who actually lived and taught in1st century Palestine. That gap between the historical Jesus and the religious icon reveals something profound about how power works and how empires shape narratives. It was exactly the same 2,000 years ago as it is today.
Scholars are also reasonably certain Jesus studied under John the Baptist, an apocalyptic preacher who taught that God was coming to destroy evil and establish his kingdom. Jesus was one of his disciples but at some point in time broke away and started his own following. And here I think is where the extraordinary happened. To me the baptism of Jesus, the ritual purification of Jesus with water by John the Baptist allowed Jesus to awaken the inner self. Similar in many ways to Buddha’s enlightenment, but not the same. All the Buddha recognized was the nature of his being. Same with Jesus, but more, at that moment he was able to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of the Universe. In that moment Jesus knew what John the Baptist didn't.
I looked into the historical Jesus and I don't want any other. If the historical Jesus were not God in the flesh, I'd be wrong, and I'd want to know I was wrong. I don't see anything directly wrong with your last paragraph, although it neglects the phase that happened before the baptism which I don't believe in neglecting. Anyway, so we're looking at a historical Jesus who merged his consciousness with the consciousness of the universe over a certain period of time; please go on.
Add: All told, in one sense Jesus never claimed to be God on his own. In another sense there's evidence Jesus made lots of divine claims typical for being one with (God the Father) the consciousness of the universe, and so people can twist the meaning of "claiming to be God" on both sides of the question. I'm pretty comfortable with the meaning I understand about the divine claims and I love to hear new takes on them.
I don't count myself a Zionist. I'm sold out to the Jesus who revealed himself to me. The state of Israel can be praised or criticized like any nation when it does good or bad; it's in a nadir these last few years. But believing in sharing Jesus with everyone I believing in building bridges and have special concern with building bridges to and from the Jews. That is, we should all come to see Jesus as he truly is, and Jesus speaks of his people as his bride which culturally means sharing in all his human powers and titles (and all the divine potential that entails), including being the Anointeds of our generation.
Trusting nobody is a great start. I tried it but then realized I was trusting myself to do the distrusting right. I doubted everything but like Descartes realized I couldn't doubt that I was doing the doubting. Bob Dylan said you gotta serve somebody. So looking at all the things in the cosmos I could serve, I came to determine that the Jesus who revealed himself to me was the best one on all counts; and that I don't have to sweat anything anymore because I can't keep myself in his hand but he can keep me. And as Ann Coulter says of Christianity, if you can find a better offer, take it! HTH.
I don't care what you call or count yourself as, a Messianic Gentile, an Evangelical Christian or something else... I say you are a Christian Zionist.
Did you know the word nadir has Arabic roots? the source of nadir is na?hir, meaning "opposite", that is the opposite of the zenith. (The word zenith itself is a modification of another Arabic word that means "the way over one's head.")
Interesting choice of words for the artificial nation mostly owned by a satanist family, the Rothschilds, committing genocide of Arab Palestinians. Right in front of our eyes.
Why would I care what another satanist jew, his real name is Robert Allen Zimmerman, has to say?
Also I don't care what Ann Coulter has to say. Ann Coulter is a rabid Zionist, and neocon heroine. She is just another "useful idiot", according to Netanyahu. "I don't believe the Jewish state and modern Zionism would have been possible without Christian Zionists." - Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu
Having said all that, what is your answer to my question?
Well, it's not very useful to answer questions if you're going to reject self-identification and claim to define all the terms, is it? What do you think I do that's Zionist? I don't have to have the same views as Scott Lively, though I don't think he's that Zionist either. Are you just larping to get me to criticize Israel? Why would Israel be such an important issue to you? You know we have a lot of people here larping to make certain things (usually Israel) look good indirectly by making their opponents look really stupid, right?
I cited people because they say reasonable things; you rejected the people without commenting on the merits of the reasonable things. If I had said the same things without quoting the people you might have interacted with the reason, but instead I thought it important to quote my sources, and you showed an ad hominem debate style twice in a row.
I agree with you that Christian Zionists, defined as favoritists toward the Jews and Israel, have been an important driver in creating Israel, so I didn't comment on it. But you act as if I didn't answer the question of why I'm a supporter when I'm not a "supporter" of the state. It stands or falls on its actions like any other nation, and I said (happening to select an Arabic word, for which I don't follow your tangent at all) that it's actions are in a low point lately (you seem not to have noticed the definition when you quoted the etymology).
So if your plan is to double down with wifebeater fallacies, refusal to agree on definitions, and ad hominems, I'm not sure this board is the place for you. I asked you what you believe about Jesus and your answer amounts to "not that" but you cannot give a positive overview of what you're committed to. A lot of people here are committed to seek the truth at all costs, and some decline to make that commitment and they wind up trusting themselves while believing they trust nobody, or committing some other basic logic contradiction. But if your arguments are full of logical fallacies why would I seek evidence that your foundational position isn't a contradiction?
I tried to avoid discussing Jesus because I'm convinced we have two different views on this. Very well, I'll share this with you, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be.
Let's first talk about the historical Jesus, because indeed we have evidence that this man existed.
Two billion people believe Jesus is God (you included), not a prophet, not a teacher, but literally God in human form. But, IMO, the Jesus that billions worship today is not the Jesus who actually lived and taught in1st century Palestine. That gap between the historical Jesus and the religious icon reveals something profound about how power works and how empires shape narratives. It was exactly the same 2,000 years ago as it is today.
Scholars are also reasonably certain Jesus studied under John the Baptist, an apocalyptic preacher who taught that God was coming to destroy evil and establish his kingdom. Jesus was one of his disciples but at some point in time broke away and started his own following. And here I think is where the extraordinary happened. To me the baptism of Jesus, the ritual purification of Jesus with water by John the Baptist allowed Jesus to awaken the inner self. Similar in many ways to Buddha’s enlightenment, but not the same. All the Buddha recognized was the nature of his being. Same with Jesus, but more, at that moment he was able to merge his consciousness with the consciousness of the Universe. In that moment Jesus knew what John the Baptist didn't.
I looked into the historical Jesus and I don't want any other. If the historical Jesus were not God in the flesh, I'd be wrong, and I'd want to know I was wrong. I don't see anything directly wrong with your last paragraph, although it neglects the phase that happened before the baptism which I don't believe in neglecting. Anyway, so we're looking at a historical Jesus who merged his consciousness with the consciousness of the universe over a certain period of time; please go on.
Add: All told, in one sense Jesus never claimed to be God on his own. In another sense there's evidence Jesus made lots of divine claims typical for being one with (God the Father) the consciousness of the universe, and so people can twist the meaning of "claiming to be God" on both sides of the question. I'm pretty comfortable with the meaning I understand about the divine claims and I love to hear new takes on them.