"Zapanaz" <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
wrote in message
news:48SdnUWEjro1AC_anZ2dnUVZ_oPinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > >
> >"The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik
Jews
> >is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people."
> >
> >http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=4062&id2=6434
> >
> >Zionism versus
> >Bolshevism.
>
> yes, that's certainly a lot of quoted material. TONS of it.
>
> What are you trying to claim to be the case?
>
> Is there a "zionist conspiracy"? Do you believe that Winston
> Churchill was part of some international "zionist conspiracy"? What,
> exactly, is this conspiracy? For the Zionists to take over the world?
> Was Churchill one of these Zionists?
>
>
Christian-Zionists have been trying to make the world safe for the return
of
Jesus (who probably didn't even exist). There would be no Israel if
Christian-Zionists didn't need it to exist in order to
"fulfull Bible prophecy."
The American "Christian Right" is firmly entrenched in the White House and
the Pentagon. They have succeeded in creating hell on Earth by shaping
world
events to conform to their erroneous beliefs about the Bible, bringing
about a self-fulfilling prophecy of Armegeddon
The conflict in the Middle East, and the "War on Terrorism", have their
roots in British religious fanaticism. There would be no modern state of
Israel if not for the "British Israel theory", a belief that the British,
Americans and several other European nations are the lost 10 Tribes of
Israel. British Israel theory is based on so-called "Bible prophecies"
concerning Israel in "the last days", after which Jesus Christ is supposed
to return to earth in a murderous, vengeful rage in the battle of
Armageddon, rewarding his true believers, while puni****ng "evildoers".
BRITISH LITERALIST FOREIGN POLICY
The British Literalists--strong among the Anglican Evangelicals and in
various Nonconformist churches--were not about to abandon their hopes of
converting Jews and sending them to Palestine to meet their Messiah,
especially not around 1840, when the current British policy of offering
protection to Jews living in Palestine raised great expectations among the
the premillennialists. Indeed, Literalist influence was unofficially
helping
to shape that policy. An ardent Literalist, Lord Ashley (later the Earl of
Shaftesbury), was stepson- in-law and confidant of Lord Palmerston, the
British foreign secretary. Ashley had private hopes of bringing about,
through British action, the restoration of Israel to Palestine in
preparation for the Second Advent. In 1840 he prodded Palmerston, by
adducing political reasons, into seeking international backing for Jewish
migration to Palestine, while he confided to his diary his own very
different motives, which were distinctly religious:
Dined with Palmerston. After dinner left alone with him. Propounded my
scheme, which seemed to strike his fancy . . . . Palmerston has already
been
chosen by God to be an instrument of good to His ancient people; to do
homage, as it were, to their inheritance, and to recognise their rights
without believing their destiny . . . . I am forced to argue politically,
financially, commercially; these considerations strike him home; he weeps
not like his Master over Jerusalem, nor prays that now, at last, she may
put
on her beautiful garments.[1]
Ashley's influence was likewise behind the establishment of a consulate in
Jerusalem in 1838, also the creating of an Anglican bishopric there in
1841
and the appointment to it of a Jewish Christian bishop. On October 16,
1841,
he wrote in his diary: "Where would the Sultan's permission [to build the
bishop's church] have been without Palmerston's vigour in consequence of
my
repeated and earnest representations?"[2]
But Ashley's dream of a British-sponsored and treaty-protected Jewish
migration to Palestine did not materialize. The four-power treaty of 1840
ignored the matter. Even the Jews themselves showed little interest; more
than half a century passed before Zionism arose.
[p. 4] Nevertheless, 20th-century British policy in the Middle East owed
something to the prophetic interpretation of the Literalists of the 1830s
and 1840s.
As one recent writer has put it:
Lord Shaftesbury's adventure marks the point when events began leading
logically toward the [Palestine] Mandate. . . .
Palmerston['s Middle Eastern policies] mark the beginning of official
British intervention on behalf of the "Jewish nation" and of its
resettlement in Palestine. . . .
Ashley had not labored in vain. . . . All these events centering in the
Holy Land [including "the visionary prospects aroused by the Evangelical
craze for conversion of the Jews and the Jerusalem bishopric"] combined to
create almost a proprietary feeling about Palestine. The idea of a British
annex there through the medium of a British-sponsored restoration of
Israel
began to appeal to other minds than Ashley's.[3]
[1] Anthony Ashley, Earl of Shaftesbury, Diary entries, quoted in Edwin
Hodder, The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, vol. 1, pp.
310, 311. Ashley was the one referred to, but not named (in London Times,
Aug. 17, 1840, p. 3, col. 5), as the promoter of western-sponsored Jewish
migration to Palestine.
[2] Hodder, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 377 (cf. pp. 370, 374). See also Harold
Temperley, England and the Near East: The Crimea (1936), p. 443, note 275;
Barbara W. Tuchman, Bible and Sword (1956, 1968), chap. 10.
[3] Tuchman, op. cit. (1968 ed.), pp. xi, 197, 208.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just like Scientology, it's all based on silly fables.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04EFDF1E30F93AA35750C0A9649C8B63
As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting
New York Times; March 9, 2002.
By MICHAEL MASSING
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The
entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The
same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from
being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was
more
likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide
a
rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists
digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained
wide
acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to
disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5
million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new
Torah
and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called
"Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that
incor****ates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology
and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book,
it
represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious
mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine do***ent.
"When I grew up in Brooklyn, congregants were not sophisticated about
anything," said Rabbi Harold Kushner, the author of "When Bad Things
Happen
to Good People" and a co-editor of the new book. "Today, they are very
sophisticated and well read about psychology, literature and history, but
they are locked in a childish version of the Bible."
"Etz Hayim," compiled by David Lieber of the University of Judaism in Los
Angeles, seeks to change that. It offers the standard Hebrew text, a
parallel English translation (edited by Chaim Potok, best known as the
author of "The Chosen"), a page-by-page exegesis, periodic commentaries on
Jewish practice and, at the end, 41 essays by prominent rabbis and
scholars
on topics ranging from the Torah scroll and dietary laws to ecology and
eschatology.
These essays, perused during uninspired sermons or Torah readings at
Sabbath
services, will no doubt surprise many congregants. For instance, an essay
on
Ancient Near Eastern Mythology," by Robert Wexler, president of the
University of Judaism in Los Angeles, states that on the basis of modern
scholar****p, it seems unlikely that the story of Genesis originated in
Palestine. More likely, Mr. Wexler says, it arose in Mesopotamia, the
influence of which is most apparent in the story of the Flood, which
probably grew out of the periodic overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers. The story of Noah, Mr. Wexler adds, was probably borrowed from the
Mesopotamian epic Gilgamesh.
Equally striking for many readers will be the essay "Biblical
Archaeology,"
by Lee I. Levine, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
"There
is no reference in Egyptian sources to Israel's sojourn in that country,"
he
writes, "and the evidence that does exist is negligible and indirect." The
few indirect pieces of evidence, like the use of Egyptian names, he adds,
"are far from adequate to corroborate the historicity of the biblical
account."
Similarly ambiguous, Mr. Levine writes, is the evidence of the conquest
and
settlement of Canaan, the ancient name for the area including Israel.
Excavations showing that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabited, he says,
"clearly seem to contradict the violent and complete conquest ****trayed in
the Book of Joshua." What's more, he says, there is an "almost total
absence
of archaeological evidence" backing up the Bible's grand descriptions of
the
Jerusalem of David and Solomon.
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled
and
understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi
at
Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some
congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last
Passover,
in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly
said
that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible
describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at
all." The rabbi offered what he called a "litany of disillusion" about the
narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses
and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said,
archaeologists
digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not
one
shard of pottery."
http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/christian_zionism.html
|
