Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Snow Knight's Castle

Gaza crisis continues as Hamas steals UN supplies

116 Comments
Tuesday, February, 10, 2009 11:17 AM crossbow writes:

Right On!!

People may wonder about what is happening but when Hamas pulls this mess like this there can be VERY little doupt!!keep up the good work Snow Knight.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 10, 2009 11:19 AM crossbow writes:

also

The Un better open its eyes to see.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 10, 2009 1:26 PM Conservabear writes:

Good Post, Keep It Up.

Please, don't let me get started on Hamas and the UN.
When you lie with beasts you get fleas and making deals with Hamas and others of their species means using a lot of Flea killer. It is also like sleeping with the devil.
I fully expected Hamas not to abide by the rules or cease fires or treaties and again I am not disappointed. They live down to their expectations.
The UN is a morass of moronic misfits who like these others condone violence, upheavel, evil-doers and violence against women. They believe in stoning Women when they step out of line. The UN is a joke yet they demand that the US tow the line and constantly bring up our failings yet are blind to their own. I refuse to believe a word they say. They Recognize Hamas and any other misguided, violent organization. Oh and about The Rule of law the UN wouldn't recognize the rule of law if it was delivered by God Himself. According to these people Good is Bad and Bad is Good, need I say more.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 10, 2009 3:40 PM davecatbone writes:

Helen Thomas

would say these are lies, damned lies. Of course she's insane but the Enemedia doesn't fit this kind of news into it's template.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 10, 2009 7:02 PM caday5 writes:

Conservabear

You sound like a typical conservative who rants against the UN but are unaware of the crimes of your own country.

We broke the Geneva Conventions in our first attack against Iraq by obliterating almost all of their civilian infrastructure. Our sanctions helped keep those systems in disrepair. As a result of not have water and sewage treatment, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi CHILDREN died.

We've given Israel an unbalanced support. And when Hamas tried to offer the olive branch, we helped Israel decimate its civilian infrastructure.

BTW, during the Jewish mandate, Jewish terrorists attacked civilians, the Brits, and killed a UN envoy.

Prior to demonizing another group, and Hamas deserves significant criticisms, look in your country's mirror. Only a priori reasoning allows one to live in deny one's own crimes.

BTW, the UN may not work as well as it should because its most powerful member is a rogue state.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 11, 2009 9:54 PM dawndawn writes:

Gaza Crisis

Let it be BiBi! He will prove to be a stern counter to pbho. Especially now, Israel is like David v Goliath. Israel is outnumbered, especially in the UN. I think Israel and the US should drop out of the UN and the UN should be evicted. They are despots. Everyone gets all worked up about Hamas. They bring their misery upon themselves and use the blood of innocents to make the news cycles. They (and their ilk) are on record saying they embrace death the way we embrace life. There can be no dialogue with these people, only death, destruction and despair.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 11, 2009 10:35 PM Cindy writes:

Conservabear is dead on ...

..Caday5 truth is something you're not looking for. It's just something to play with..Omissions and half truths..Islam has Satanic Roots...New Age Teachings have Satanic roots...go study some more:


Alice Bailey & Master Djwhal Khul: A Satanic Communion

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Alice_Bailey.htm


Rainbow Swastika

http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_transform.html#inv ocation

If you really want to know the Truth you'll find it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 9:45 AM Watch Dawg writes:

SnowKnight

Dead on right. Hamas took over Gaza-forced coversions to Islam and beheaded rival Fatah party members(so much for caday5's claim that muslums believe in equality) The UN is a bigger failure than the leage of nations that was before it. great opst SK---God bless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 9:47 AM Watch Dawg writes:

Conservaber'cindy,crossbow and Dawndawn

full agreement with you also. When will the world realise what is going on???did 911 mean anything????
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 10:00 AM caday5 writes:

Watch Dawg

First, Hamas was elected. The US tried to provoke a civil war with illegal shipments of arms to Fatah. Certainly Hamas has committed crimes, but look at their environment. An even bigger criminal, the Israeli gov't, who kills at will and ignores international law has provoked both cycles and chains of abuse.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 10:01 AM caday5 writes:

Wattch Dawg

BTW, I forgot to mention that to make a blanket statement on Muslims based on one group is called overgeneralization.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 12:18 PM Watch Dawg writes:

caday5

Hitler was elected too and look what happened. He immeditely took the whole country over just like Hamas took over Gaza. You want to talk about criminals?? Just re-reat Snowknights post---it is Hamas that is stealing the UN supplies thus deniing needy women and childern much needed help. OH and BTW I did not make a "blanket" statement--I simply said the truth--muslums believe there is one god-allah and moehammed is his prophet- all other religions (and people) are inferior thus there is NO equality. Also re look at what conservabear, Davecat and Cindy wrote.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 2:15 PM Shadow95 writes:

Snow Knight

Hamas will not stop at Gaza just like Hezbolla will not stop with Lebonon. Both these Thug terror groups(trained and supplied by Iran)are a part of the whole plan to dominate the entire region under Islam--then to branch out to other countrys in the med.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 4:45 PM Snow Knight writes:

C-bow

thanks for coming by!!Sadly, The UN has been blind(and led by them) for much too long-just look at the mess in Dafur.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 4:49 PM Snow Knight writes:

C-bear

A very warm wecome to the castle--everything you said--RIGHT ON!!!!not much that I can add except this just maybe the world is waking up to the madness Israel is having to deal with.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 4:51 PM Snow Knight writes:

Davecat

the only template the MSM has is made by those who are pulling their puppet strings---rich (moveon.org)socialists!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 4:57 PM Snow Knight writes:

Ah caday5

you never cease to amuse me-the only "olive branch" Hamas has offered was a snake with fangs dripping with the venom they have.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 4:59 PM Snow Knight writes:

dawndawn

full agreement--Israel my be outnumbered in the UN but with God Israel is the magority! Thanks for coming by--you are always welcome.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 5:02 PM Snow Knight writes:

cindy

welcome!! you are quite right. I have told caday5 here several times the same truth-especially about the middle east. It just seems that he just enjoys draging an arguement out forever. Thanks for coming By!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 5:03 PM Snow Knight writes:

Watch Dawg

Thanks Bro. I always try to keep it real here at the castle.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 5:05 PM Snow Knight writes:

Shadow95-welcome

and you are 100% right. I see you have done your homework about the middle east!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 5:14 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

a terrorist group

will always be a terrorist group. Funny how people somehow expected that Hamas would turn away from terrorism once they were elected in Gaza. That would be like them expecting the KKK to change and do a public service announcement like "Hello America, we know we've been some really bad people in the past. We're ashamed of our past offenses. We decided it was time to change to better our country. We wanted to wake up and become part of normal society. We don't hate foreigners, blacks, or Jews anymore. Now we hate pedaphiles and real criminals. Those will be the people we will turn our attention to. Come on, America. Join us. Join the new KKK." Puleez. Hamas will always be what it was.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 7:29 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

new post up

part of my presidential series of blogs. Olbermann interviews me in this one.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 12, 2009 10:25 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

You might want to check Israel's history. They broke out from being part of the British Mandate by using terrorism. 2 of Israel's PMs belonged to Jewish terrorist groups

Then consider that Nelson Mandella belonged to a terrorist group and once apartheid was broken, he didn't use terrorism

All or nothing thinking is a strong driving force in TH conservative thinking. Your statement " a terrorist group will always be a terrorist group" is just an example of that kind of thinking
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 13, 2009 8:05 AM trespassers william writes:

Off the subject

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for calling and for making your voice known. Hopefully others will do the same.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 13, 2009 6:51 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

caday5

First, the Brits had no business there, as was the case in most of the world. They loved taking things that weren't theirs. Ask the Greek government. Second, the Brits put up a blockade to keep the first Israeli refugees out of that land, but they went through it. I know about what you speak of and the circumstances were totally different. Nearly every land refused the Jews sanctuary, including Britain and the US. The attempted genocide showed that the Jews needed a land of their own. How about the land they had 2500 years ago? The Brits tried to stop them from even going there.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, February, 13, 2009 7:21 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Who had more business there, the Brits or European Jews? Terrorism is terrorism, isn't it? And when you kill Arab civilians or a UN envoy coming to help make peace, isn't that terrorism. And aren't there other ways to deal with the brits besides terrorism?

See, if a Jew or Israeli commits terrorism, conservatives have all the excuses in the world to justify it. Let an Arab commit terrorism and it is sign that they are only evil. It is a double standard.

There is no doubt that even without the holocaust, the Jews needed help from European Christian anti-Semites. But why become the oppressor against the indigenous people of Palestine? Certainly there is a cause and effect from their past persecutions, but the same can be said of the Palestinians. They too, when oppressed enough, will become oppressors. The Israeli gov't is simply continuing the chain of abuse.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 9:03 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse "the body"Norman

Welcome, my friend. I agree fully with your points--well put. Instead of jumping all over Israel--the UN should investagate Hamas for stealing their supplies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 9:07 AM Snow Knight writes:

TWill

your welcome--I am sure more will!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 9:09 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

since the land is Israels , the decendants of Abraham have every right to their own land ---do they not??
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 9:11 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse "the body"Norman

Stick to your guns--stand strong--this guy is quite a piece of work.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 10:05 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

caday5

I'm sorry, but that's dumb. What exactly is an European Jew? Which European country is the origin of the Jews? There isn't a European country that was the origin of the Jews. The land that the Jews came from and settled was Israel. The Palestinians were not indigenous to the land of Israel if you really go by the true meaning of "indigenous". They started settling in after Israel's land was taken from them. It's not just the Bible that points this out, but history books as well. Kill Arab civilians? Let me ask you some simple questions. If you can answer them honestly, then you'll see your point is futile. Who hides amongst civilians as to bring about the most collateral damage? If the Palestinians stopped fighting the Jews, would the Jews stop fighting Palestinians? If Israel pulled out of all that land except for one street. Gave the rest of the country to the Arabs and named that one street Israel, what would happen to them? End of story.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 11:03 AM drpete writes:

The U.S. should resign from and deport

the "United Nations" post haste. I think Haiti would be a good spot for them, but it would be their choice.

The U.N. cannot, and never could be, effective . . . at anything. Conceptual naivete from the get-go. It is a democracy and a democracy is always untenable. A democracy is a gazelle and two lions deciding on a dinner menu.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 2:49 PM caday5 writes:

drpete

How can the UN be effective when its most powerful member ignores the rules? And why should the US resign when it has already emasculated the UN?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 5:55 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

again Caday

The UN breaks its own rules. Remember the UN's Oil For Food Scandal? The highest levels of the UN conspired to keep a murderous dictator in power while innocent Iraqis starved and died of easily curable diseases in order to get money and cheap oil. Benon Sevan, then UN General Secretary Kofi Annan's righthand man was indicted in the all too seldomly reported story. Kofi's own son was also indicted. I think this was the biggest criminal conspiracy in the history of our world, but people seem to gloss right over it. They conspired to keep someone they knew to have murdered hundreds of thousands of people in power to make money. We should have pulled out of the UN then.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 6:54 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

and there was no corruption in Congress when Republicans had control? Did you also know that our gov't knew all about but it served their purposes? Did you know we supplied Saddamn with materials for WMDs until he invaded Kuwait? Do you remember Iran-Contra?

If corruption disqualifies a group from working, we would have no working groups--including our own gov't. You prosecute criminals individually. But without an international organization and law, what you have left is an eternal king of the hill where some of the participants have WMDs at their disposal.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 10:27 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

man,

veer off the subject even more why don't you? Did I mention anything about a democratic congress? To answer your questions, yes I know about the republican congress being corrupt. Was it more corrupt than these dems that are in control now? I'd argue that with you all day long. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd should both be in jail. Not only are they not in jail. Not only are they still in congress, but they still have major power positions in their respective committees. Frank was telling everyone there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie, all the while he was sleeping with an exec at Fannie. Insert joke here. Yes, I know we supplied weapons to Saddam, but it wasn't all the way up until Saddam invaded Kuwait. We shouldn't have given him the weapons, but it was to combat a bigger threat at the time, the Iranians. Iran/Contra was NOTHING compared to the UN Oil For Food Scandal. Not even in the same ballpark. As a matter of fact, if you look at it honestly, nothing is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 11:24 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

the oil for food scandal was nothing compared with effects of the sanctions. The conjunction of targeting of civilian infrastructure from the first Persian gulf war and the sanctions caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children due to disease.

The actual oil for food program, outside of the scandal, was described as genocidal according to its first coordinator, Denis Haliday. Its second coordinator, Hans Von Sponeck, called it a war.

We pushed those sanctions through the UN and enforced them. And this is my point, the failures of the UN is a reflection of its members, especially its most powerful ones.

Besides, the scandals involved with the oil for food program was morally worse than aiding Saddamn in building WMDs? Between 1986 to 1989, we sent over 70 shipments of such materials to Saddamn. I understand why people bring up Iran with the Ayatollah Khomeini as a reason for supporting Saddamn, but that reason fails for two reasons. First, we urged Saddamn to start the war and I believe he used WMDs in that war. Second, such a philosophy merely exercises a boolean logic in a complex world. This same kind of logic allowed us to murderously install dictators in countries that moved to the left.

BTW, unless you want to discount the terrorism that we sponsored against Nicaragua and helped financed through that scandal, it is difficult to say that the oil for food scandal was worse.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, February, 14, 2009 11:42 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

I don't agree with sanctions because they never work. They only hurt the weakest in that country. The Oil For Food program failed even more because from the beginning Saddam was pilfering with the help of the UN's top member countries, not to mention the highest levels of the UN itself. You don't think Kofi had has hand in that somehow? His son and righthand man were both involved in that scandal. I did say that we shouldn't have given Iraq those weapons, but I would have to say also that they were developing most of those weapons themselves. Remember Mrs. Anthrax and Dr. Germ, those comic book characters? The O.F.F. scandal was much worse than the Nicaraguan situation. If there was a figure in recent history up to par with Hitler, it was Saddam Hussein. Countries kept him in power to make money and get cheap oil knowing who he was and what he's done. He was breaking UN resolution after resolution. He let his sick sons go out and rape Iraqi women. Anyone accused of speaking against Saddam would have their wives raped, kids molested and tortured right in their presence. The UN wanted this man in power to make money. Yeah, I'd say this was worse considering the amount of nations involved.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, February, 15, 2009 8:49 AM caday5 writes:

btw

Who was convicted of what in the oil for food scam? And no, I won't assume Kofi's guilt. But regarding which is worse, comparing a then future target to Hitler is SOP for those wishing to go to war. In actuality, the combination of our wars and sanctions against Iraq killed far more Iraqis than Saddamn did.

What does that mean? Does it mean that we only prosecute the worse?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 12:16 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

come on Caday

Kojo admitted involvement. You need convictions under the current international status quo? Benon Sevan was indicted and he was Kofi's righthand man. What has happened since? No idea. I do know he was indicted. Kojo, Kofi's son admitted involvement in the scandal. What has happened with him since? No idea. I think they're still trying Nazi war criminals in the Hague.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 12:18 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

btw

The war in Iraq has not killed more Iraqis than Saddam did. You're getting Rosey O'Donnell statistics. Get your facts straight. Even the UN knows this.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 12:53 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Read the notes more carefully. The combination of wars and the sanctions killed more than Saddamn did.

In the first Persian Gulf war, the destruction of most of Iraq's electric grid, water and sewage plants along with the sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and over 1 million Iraqis overall. The second war has killed up to 1.2 million Iraqis. And again, we are accessories in many of the murders that Saddamn committed. In fact, Saddamn could have been eliminated in '91 during the Shiite revolt except that Bush gave Saddamn permission to use helicopters to put down the rebellion. Why? Because as Bush said, "What we says go."
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 12:56 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I read

and it's still nowhere near the same. They'll be discovering mass graves for decades of those we don't even know of yet. I'd really love to see where you're getting this "one million dead" numbers statistic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 7:44 AM caday5 writes:

A number of places

for the 1 million dead from the 2003 invasion. The British Oxford Polls for one but also the only peer-reviewed study, last released in 2006, that was published in the Lancet, the British equivalent to JAMA, estimated the deaths at 655,000 (the range given was between 392,000 and 900,000). This latter makes the former a realistic possibility. And that is why I say UP TO and not exactly or approximately.

Stats for the First war and sanction years which say that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children died was acknowledged by our own gov't, Secretary Albright, and the range was put between 400,000 to 800,000 by the UN and the person who gave the lowest value placed it at 375,000. An Iraqi website gave the value of 1.6 million Iraqis died during that time. At least the first two coordinators resigned in protest of how horrible the sanctions were. I think the third one did two.

We could argue who killed more but we provided Saddamn with materials for WMDs so we are also accessories to some of his murders. But suppose Saddamn wins a last second buzzer beater body count, would that make us honorable?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 9:10 AM ben-Israel writes:

Shalom! Jesse

As you can very well see-caday5 here is most cirtainly not seeking truth--he is seeking strife. My best guess is that it is a ego-power thing with him. He thinks he is in control when he prolongs discussion in arguement, thus, he is constantly fighting (prov 18:6-7)He is doing this on other blogs as well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 11:59 AM caday5 writes:

ben-Israel

Then again, when the prophets persistently warned the kings and people to repent, they were doing what they should. Taking persistence as the only necessary condition for forming a judgment is not really Biblical.

Let's look at what is being discussed forever, that is equality between Israelis and Palestinians and their rights as people. On what side of the argument regarding equality are you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 12:17 PM ben-Israel writes:

So caday5

are you now a prophet? what arrogance. In regard to rights of people I am on the side of the one who made rights in the biginning.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 12:21 PM ben-Israel writes:

and..caday5

sence the land is Israels ---who are the real "occupiers"?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 1:54 PM caday5 writes:

Ben-Israel

Anyone who reminds others to follow God's word is actually doing some of what the prophets did in the OT. One doesn't have to be given the same kinds of gifts that the OT prophets had, one simply has to read and understand God's Word and share that. So I don't look at doing that work as being extraordinary.

And how is it that people whose families lived on the land for over a millennium became occupiers whose presence mean oppression? It is Europeans who came to Palestine to kick the indigenous people off and yet you are ready to blame the victim. That is an abusive mentality. Those who abuse others want their victims to feel responsible.

Ben-Israel, the problem is that grabbing for oneself has become holier, in some people's eyes, than giving to others, which is what the Bible, OT & NT, commands.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 6:11 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

caday

I'd have to get the stats from the UN. That is one thing the UN is actually pretty good at. calculating how many REAL dead there are. I know a lot of these liberal bastion organizations love to politicize their findings. When Israel went into palestinian neighborhoods years ago with tanks, the press was throwing out "many hundreds of dead", when in fact it was around 45. What if we had not gone in? Saddam didn't have Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax there as esteemed guests. As I said, we shouldn't have given him the weapons, but he would have developed them anyway and used them anyway. It doesn't take much technology to develop mustard gas. Those people would have been killed anyway. You might as well have thrown in the war with Iran and how many were killed then too if you're going to add up everything in sight. If you're also looking to the OT for wisdom, it does tell the Israelites that He would bring them back to their rightful homeland. Does it not? If you're going to quote things, you might as well take everything in.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 6:18 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

ben Israel

It is written that God promised that He would bring the Israelites back to the land of their fathers. After 2500 years it happened. Incredible prophecy fulfilled. It is also written, I'm sure not read by Caday, that God has commanded the Israelites to NOT GIVE any of their lot to anyone else, because as it's written "I have given them their lot". Caday, if you look at that little sliver of land called Israel and then look at the continent scale sized land of the Arab nations, I think the Arabs definitely have plenty in their lot. You still haven't gone anywhere near answering those questions I gave. What if Israel gave all of its land back and only kept one street, what would happen to that street named Israel? You know what would happen. The Arabs wouldn't even be able to allow that street to exist.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 6:26 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

continued

Let's also not forget that the former King of Jordan, Hussein, decided he'd rather live next to a Jewish occupied Israel than Palestinians having control. He knew what Arafat was about and what would have happened if the PLO got what they wanted. What does that tell you? How many Palestinian terrorists did King Hussein kill? There is plenty of land in the Arab World that the Palestinians could live in. I do believe Israel is smaller than my homestate of Indiana. As it's written, the Jews should not give any of their lot to anyone. They shouldn't have given back Gaza. Any land the Jews give back makes Israel weaker. That you cannot argue. One street named Israel wouldn't survive two days. Ben Israel, I did notice what he does. He's not nearly as bad as most that take his side of this argument is though. He actually discusses things. There's hope for you Caday. As I said, if you're going to quote some of the OT, you better know it all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 8:30 PM caday5 writes:

Regarding Saddamn

we were accessories. The fact that he was going to kill them anyway, let's for argument's sake assume that, when we provided the weapons and the financial support for his regime, which is what we did, we became accessories.

As for stats and Israel, the blame for the stat fog lies on two sides. Certainly the stats are sometimes overinflated but not all of the time. Also, Israel exercises selectively strict control over media access to and often acts as if its accusations must be regarded as fact without having to be accountable to anyone.

A good source for Israeli stats is the Israeli site for B'TSelem. To realize what Israel has done one only needs to read the writings of Israelis or activists who have witnessed or experienced Israeli abuse of power.

Regarding what God told his people about the homeland is debatable amongst fundamentalists. If you go to the NT, for example, you will find that the NT writers regarded the Church, not the nation of Israel, as the descendants of Abraham and the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham. Of special interest here are Paul's writings to the Galations, especially Chapters 2-4, and to the Romans, especially chapters 9-11.

In addition, regarding the OT perspective, the people were not to enter the land without anointed leaders like Joshua or Caleb or others. Their stories are written in the OT.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 16, 2009 8:35 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

But what you are forgetting is that you still insist on what started as a European venture that Europeans have the right to kick indigenous people of their land because they can always move someplace else. That is equality? That is justice? Do you understand why people resist even to criminal levels?

Suppose a group from Mexico came up and claimed Texas saying that the people who lived there have 49 other states to go to, would that be right? After all, the Mexicans owned the land before we confiscated it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 12:25 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

debatable amongst fundamentalists, eh?

Jeremiah 32:37-40 "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in greath wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwel safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." Deuteronomy 30:4-5 "If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers." Debate that, Caday.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 8:31 AM caday5 writes:

Certainly it is debatable

it is debatable amongst those who are Dispensational and those who are not. An interesting link to read is below:

http://www.ifamericansonlyknew.com/cur_sit/wdoor.html

At stake are the hermeneutics employed when approaching the scriptures. The dispensational school wants to use a literal interpretation of the Old Testament unless it is impossible. My point against employing that hermeneutic is that it places greater precedence on the Old Testament where Christ is veiled than on the New Testament where Christ is revealed. Because once we use the same hermeneutic on the New Testament, we contradictions between what is implied in the New Testament and what is implied by a literal reading of the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, for example, Israel is no longer God's people who are to live in the land. THey are God's people only in that they are to hear and believe the Gospel (Romans chapters 9-11). The true descendants of Abraham are no longer those by ancestry, but those who believe the Gospel and thus who exercised faith like Abraham (Galations chapters 2-3). Therefore, the promise to Abraham is only on those believe the Gospel.

I don't want to write any more because the link above will explain the view of other Christian fundamentalists.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 10:06 AM Snow Knight writes:

COME ON!!caday5

So now you are debating such truth from God's word? Are you that arrogant? have you all to soon forgotten that all this was covered before at Conservabears place? What was proven true there is also true here---God is bringing his people home to their land and there is no one--espcially YOU-who can say no.Because God is doing it. If you want to fight God-caday5-be my guest.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 10:10 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

Sorry It took me a wyle in replying- I do not have daily access to a computer. What you shared is 100% correct. God is bringing his people home to their land. In 1948 The UN declared what already was --Israel a nation again. The Bible fully supports this and sadly, those like caday5 here are in denial.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 10:13 AM Snow Knight writes:

attition caday5

Israel in the NT are God's people because those who believe are "grafted in". Thus Israel is living in the land-fully having the right to----end of issue.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 11:21 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

They are grafted in only when they believe, not unconditionally. They were cut off because of unbelief. And their resting place is from the law in Jesus, not in the promised land from adversaries. That is because Jesus told his Jewish disciples to go all over the earth to preach the Gospel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 11:23 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

No one from your side showed that what I was saying from the Bible was wrong. And no one answered the dilemma I said you were in. That is for those who want to interpret everything in the OT literally that such an interpretation of the New Testament contradicts that in the Old Testament.

Now did you read the link I left for Jesse?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 2:08 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

hate to bust your bubble but I have answered your position and so did Jesse and Ben--from God's word. The verse that Jesse shared tells all that here needs to tell.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 2:15 PM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

we have proven you are wrong simply because we believe the Bible as it is written. You can hold your different veiws as long as you wish and claim that me and Jesse hold to a certain view but the only view that matters is what the bok actually teaches. The land is Israels (it was called Israel in the OT as well as the NT)--we are grafted in when we believe(when all believe) in Christ and God is bringing his people back home to Zion--wheather you like it or not. and BTW I have read practally every link you have provided---I do not agree with all views.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 2:43 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

The only thing you proved was that you ignored the issue. That issue is when you take the NT as it was written it contradicts the OT as it was written with regards to Israel.

For example, in Romans 11, why were some cut off of the vine? It was for unbelief. That is the majority of Israelis because the majority do not believe. When do they get grafted back to the vine? When they believe. And why is there no mention of the land?

Go to Galations 3:7, the sons of Abraham are those who believe the Gospel because just as Abraham believed God would fulfill his promises to him regardless of his own inadequacies, we believe that God will do the same for us through Christ despite the inadequacies of our sins.

The point is that those who do not believe are not the sons of Abraham and therefore do not share in the Abrahamic covenant and in Genesis, the land was given only through that covenant. Those who do not believe are not descendants of Abraham; rather, they are cursed under the law (Gal 3: 7-14).

Finally, the New Testament reads this way; Romans 9:6 says not all of Israel are Israel just like not all who descended from Abraham are his children. The deciding factor is belief in Christ. If you do not believe in Christ, you are not a child of Abraham. If you are not a child of Abraham, you don't share in his promises and again, the owning of the land depends on being a child of Abraham.

That contradicts how you think the Genesis's account of the Abrahamic covenant reads. That is whay you have never answered.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 5:22 PM Snow Knight writes:

confused caday5

I never argued agenst who are the decendants of Abraham.To say that I have ignored tthe issue is ludercrus--what have I been writing on in these comments-the price of tea in China? my answer to you is the very same answer that I gave to you over at Conservabears place-the decendants of Abraham are those in Christ and as such inherit the everlasting Abrahamic covenant If just one who ( or two or more ) living on the land is as such--guess what?? the land is theirs--and here is a kicker--the whole earth also. The land is Israels and God is bringing his people back to their own land--face it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 5:52 PM caday5 writes:

Snow

What you are missing is that the Abrahamic promise was the land in the OT but not in the NT. The land is only promised to the descendants of Abraham who were circumcised. But in the NT, baptism replaces circumcision and the Church becomes the people of God and the land is no longer an issue.

The Jews are to seek the Abrahamic promise not by returning to the land but by believing in Christ. That is the NT message.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 9:10 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

The reason why I even brought up God's promise to His people that He would bring them back to the land of their origin was a trap. It wasn't like a speed trap. More like an "intellectually honest trap". I know everything in both testaments of the Bible and can tell you within a few verses where they are. I knew what it said about God's promise and where they were at. So after quoting exactly what these verses said, you come back with "certainly it is debatable" and bring up dispensationalism? I had hope for you that you were different than those that argue on your side of these issues, but had to test it. You failed. The NT is about salvation. Not a promise to Christians that they are the new Israel. You keep bringing up about Europeans kicking indigenous people out of their land. How are palestinians indigenous to that land? Again, how are Jews European? Ahh forget it. You won't debate with me honestly so the debate is done. Dispensationalism... Oy vey! The smack has been officially laid down.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 9:17 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

No problem. Once he brought in scripture, I knew he was going down. Just waited for the right time. Quoted word for word, in verbatim what it says and tried to dance around what it clearly states. Talk about someone that won't admit when he's wrong. Sheesh!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 10:52 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

using this post and comments for my new blog. Hope you don't mind. Sorry for dominating so much of the discussion here, but felt I had to.

http://jnormanii.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/17/facts__shmacts .thtml
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 11:00 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

But that is not what the NT says about itself. It shows a great deal of continuity with the OT. The OT promised the coming of Christ and revealed him in a veiled form. The New Testament shows that promise realized. And while you are mediating on the scriptures you know, please pay attention to the specific statements in Galations and Romans that verify what I am saying rather than just waving your hand at the points made. Be specific if you are going to say I am wrong. That is certainly better and more logical than being dismissive
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 11:02 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Forgot one point. Modern Zionism was started in Europe by Jews who felt, with much evidence, that they would never be accepted as belonging to a European country in which they resided or treated as equals. Modern Zionism was started by European Jews in the 1800s.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 11:07 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

I'm done debating you. I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what it said and that you were wrong. It's done.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 17, 2009 11:58 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I'll indulge you

One, Zionism did start in Europe and America both. What is Zionism? The movement to bring the land of Israel back to the Israelites. They became "European Jews" because they were driven out of Israel, because as it says in the OT, God was driven to anger by their lack of faith and breaking of His laws. As it is written so blindingly clear Caday, which you won't fess up to, God promised He would bring them back to their land of origin. It's written there twice, plain as day. And because of the Jew hatred in Europe and the subsequent holocaust, the Jews needed a land of their own. Did you read about the Jews on the SS Saint Louis? They looked for sanctuary everywhere, including this country but didn't find it. Nearly all of them wound up dying, if not all of them. If the Jews needed a land of their own, and God's promise to them was to bring them back to the land of their fathers, why not the land they were INDIGENOUS to? The ONLY reason why there were palestinians there was because the Jews were driven out. Right? As far as the NT goes, it's about the salvation of our whole creation. God did not dismiss the Jews in the NT. The Jews are still and will always be God's chosen race. Nothing you can point out will I let dance around what is actually written. I know the Bible back and forth and traced much of it back to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. You do not want to parce words with God's word with me because I take His word very seriously. If you are a real believer, then take heed to what is written in Revelation 12:12-17. Satan will come after the woman who brought forth the man child. The man child was Jesus, and the woman was Mary who was a JEW! A true Christian in the eyes of God will ALWAYS stand behind Israel because of EVERYTHING THAT IS WRITTEN. As is written in Romans 11:1, God has not casted away His people. If you're going to bring up scripture to me, you better know it all because I do.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 8:58 AM Snow Knight writes:

Wrong again caday5

the Abrahamic covenent (Gen 15:18) DOES include the land in the NT simply because all who are in Christ will get it--including ALL OF THE EARTH!! . "the meek shall inherit the earth" Hmmmm I wonder who said that???You still refuse to believe in the very simple truths that were already presented--that is a pity. Yes, caday5 you have failed, because we believe the word and you would debate untill armageddon.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 9:01 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

WOW! I could not have written it better myself!! 100% right on. I am so glad you are commenting here. Please take all the time and space that you want---truth is truth!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 9:05 AM Snow Knight writes:

Caday5

The passage in Jeremiah that Jesse provided tells where Zionism comes from.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 9:18 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

What you are missing is that Paul, in the Book of Galations combines what we regard as salvation with the Abrahamic covenant. The land was a sabbath from persecution for the Jews. The land, therefore meant more than just the literal land. The Gospel is the sabbath for all from the works of the Law. And we should note that because we are sinners, our most dangerous persecutor is the law.

But consider your point, the meek shall inherit the earth and that includes the land promised to Abraham. But who gets the earth? Isn't it the meek rather than those who are merely the physical descendants of Abraham. Once you go there, then the literal words of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis are violated because that land is promised to the physical descendants of Abraham who are circumcised. The issue of circumcision and the Abrahamic covenant was the reason for Paul writing Galations.

Finally, what Jesse misses in Jeremiah is addressed in the link I provided and does not talk about Modern Zionism. Modern Zionism started in Europe in the 1800s. It was the escape from European Christian anti-Semitism that started and drove Modern Zionism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 10:08 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

God said it -I believe it- that settles it for me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 10:15 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

Thanks again for your strong stand!!I would like to write a post using some of your input--(I will give you credit!) The truth that was presented( and caday5 still is in denial) will prevail.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 10:26 AM caday5 writes:

Snow

But aren't you taking the same attitude that the Pharisees took in Jesus's time? When Jesus talked about raising the temple, they took it to mean the physical temple because that is what was said.

When Jesus told the Pharisees that he would not be around much longer, they said that according the OT, that would mean that Jesus was not who he claimed to be because Messiah would reign forever.

The issue here is not about whether we believe what God said, the issue is about understanding what God said. Whereas Moses wrote in Genesis that it is only the physical descendants of Abraham who were circumcised who would inherit the land, Paul says in Galations that you cannot be a descendant of Abraham without believing the Gospel and if you did get circumcised, then Christ is no longer any benefit to you because you are relying on the law.

This is what I said before, the literal meaning of the NT often contradicts the literal meaning of the OT so our challenge here is to understand both. And the key to understanding both is to realize that the OT does not revolve around people but around Christ. There Christ is veiled. Because he arrives in the NT, there he is revealed and sheds light on how he is veiled in the OT.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 12:22 PM Watch Dawg writes:

SMACK DOWN!!

Is right!!!The RUMBLE is OVER!!and Jesse,Snow, and Ben Israel has won!!!!!what a tag team!!and caday5 is looking up from the mat and he still does not realize that he has been indeed "smacked down". Oy vey!!!The smack has been offically laid down!!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 3:16 PM caday5 writes:

Watch Dawg

All of this "Smack Down" talk is just kid talk. It ignores details and logic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 7:18 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

You're welcome, and thanks for allowing me to post so much on here and linking your blog to mine. You definitely have my permission on using what I wrote.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 7:19 PM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

"It ignores details and logic". Who the hell are you kidding? I gave all the details I needed and the best I got was "dispensationalism". Give me a break, man. You lost.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, February, 18, 2009 11:16 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

You have not explained why my response declared you the winner. This is despite the fact you are using the same hermeneutical principles that Dispensationalists use: a literal interpretation to the Old Testament unless it is impossible. And no, God did not promise to bring these Jews back as he brought others back. No NT writer interpreted the OT or forsaw this happening and neither did any OT prophet after the destruction of the first temple. And btw, the you never read was written by fundamentalists who disagree with you.

And what you have never addressed is that you use the same hermeneutic in interpreting the New Testament, it contradicts how you have interpreted the Old Testament. And what was your answer to this? You claimed to have won. Quite literally, the NT says it is not the Jews who are the descendants of Abraham but Christians. And since the land belongs solely to the descendants of Abraham, the Literal interpretation of the NT rules out your interpretation of the OT including the OT prophesies you mentioned

BTW, Modern Zionism started in Europe not in Europe and America. Second, the number of years that stand between the European Jews who started Zionism and those who were driven out of Israel is over 1,700 years so these were not people who were recently driven from Israel. These are people who worked, lived, and adopted other countries as their own for centuries. It was only when they realized that, in their lifetimes, they would never be accepted as equal citizens in those countries. The movement started as a secular move and was rejected by religious Jewish conservatives from Palestine. That is the start of Modern Zionism.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 12:17 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

literal view eh?

Please tell me what God was telling all of us in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Enlighten me with God's real meaning away from what is clearly written. You remind me of those boxers who get their tails handed to them in a fight and the referee stops it, then gets angry saying "I can still go on". You brought up scripture, then try to dance around it when I do. You have no answer for what I pointed out to you other than "well gee, if you take what God said literally". Stupid. Flat-out stupid. Admit you were wrong. Humble yourself. That's your problem. You won't when it's blindlingly obvious to everyone but you that you were wrong. If God's word isn't to be taken literally for the most part, then why read it? Why use it in your comments? Dumb.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 8:53 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

I guess that dancing around is better than the total neglect you have shown of the NT. Again, Galations 3 is clear, only believers in Christ are the descendants of Abraham with regards to the promise given him. And the promise is clear in Genesis, his descendants who are circumcised get the land. Reconcile that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 9:36 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

We have explained why you lost--We have shown you ( by God's word) the error of your position but you still fail to aknowledge it. We are not the ones "dancing" around here-it is you. I have shown you--in the NT- by Jesus own teaching ( those who are IN CHRIST--remember?? get the whole earth .)What Jesse has pointed out to you confurs perfectly to the NT because of the new covenent in Christ (there is neither Jew or greek) This is why you are on the losing end--you do not even aknowledge the position Jesse and I have is right. Your ego won't allow it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 9:39 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

Have you noticed that when we give "details and logic" they are ignored-then we are accused of not providing "detaill" ---amazing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 11:02 AM ben-Israel writes:

Snow & Jesse

Both of you have presented the facts of the case very well. It is all out here in black and white for caday5 to see and learn.Sadly, I do not believe his ego will permit it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, February, 19, 2009 11:04 AM caday5 writes:

Snow and Jesse

You have only declared yourselves winners and that is all. Anyone can do that. What you have never addressed is how when one takes the same approach to the NT that you take to the OT, you end up with a contradiction. This is especially true when handling Romans and Galations. You tried to divide "salvation" from the Jews and their land but you never addressed the fact that only those who believe are the children of Abraham and that the land belongs to the Children of Abraham.

So see yourselves as winners, in a contest where there are no winners, and myself as lost if you wish. The problem is you will not address the details of the issues. When asked to, you, again, declare yourselves winners.

This is not small issue. People's lives and homes are at stake here.

And one final note, please realize that for the Jews to take the land as you say they should they must exhibit all of the personal characteristics Jesus and his apostles warned against. The Gospel never calls us to dominate, your interpretation of the OT does. The Gospel calls us to side with the oppressed regardless of their ethnicity, your interpretation tells us to side with the Israeli gov't because of ethnicity. Where Jesus commands us to be meek, you tell Israelis to be overbearing. Where Jesus tells us to give, you tell the Israelis to take. Where Jesus tells us to love, you tell the Israelis to hate.

So be satisfied with yourselves. On blogs like this it is easy. But at sometime, visit those who sides with, those who are put down, oppressed and made homeless.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, February, 22, 2009 11:47 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

You accused me of neglecting the NT? I have put a lot of work into taking the KJV of both testaments back to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. How much work have you done doing this? I reckon none. What is the Greek word for "world" in Matthew 24:3? Maybe you'll find it online. If not, then you won't know it. Your misinterpretation of Galatians 3 is mindboggling. All that is written there is that God's promise to Abraham is also given to the those that believe in Christ. Not INSTEAD. I don't know how you could come up with your assertion, especially when I pointed out Deuteronomy 30, Jeremiah 32, and Romans 1:1. I would have commented earlier, but I've been sick. What seemed to be my neglect of your assertion of Galatians was my subtle attempt at telling you how ridiculous your interpretation of it is. How can you read Galatians 3, then read Deut. 30, Jeremiah 32, and think God wasn't promising the Jews that He would bring them back to the land of their fathers? You have to try damn hard to misinterpret Gal. 3, but to do that and not accept the very clear meaning of the verses I pointed out is quite stunning.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, February, 22, 2009 4:21 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

First, if you are using the KJV, you are not using the most recent and up to date translation. When I was in seminary, the most up to date accurate translation was the NASB. The NIV came out later but was more of modern conceptual translation, which was preferable to the paraphrase translations.

The word you are looking for for the word "world" is cosmos. It is a 2nd declension noun. See, at home, I read an interlinear version which is something I have done for years. When I lead the Campus Christian fellowship bible study at work, I use the Greek NT.

Finally, let's get to Galations 3:7ff. The implied meaning of Galations 3:7 is that it is only those who believe the Gospel are the descendants of Abraham. Why? Because, as it was said in Galations 3:6, Abraham believed and it was credited to him for righteousness. Why? Because in Galations 3:10, to not believe, which is what the Jews did, was to rely on the works of the law. Paul offers two ways to approach God. First was to rely on one's own obedience to the law. But since to rely on obedience to any law is the same as relying full obedience to the whole law, it is curse. Second, the only other way was to believe in Christ because we place no hope in our own righteousness--just as Abraham place no confidence in his flesh to produce an heir (Romans 4:19). So, in terms of inheriting the promise of Abraham, Paul eliminates the distinction between Jew and Gentile (Galations 3:28) and, instead, introduces the two kinds of children. The one was the true descendants of Abraham for they were the children of the promise, those who believed the Gospel, those who are of the works of the flesh.

Likewise, in Romans 9:6ff, Paul explicitly says that not everyone who is a descendant of Israel is considered to be a descendant of Israel. It is only the children of the promise who are the true descendants of Israel.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 1:44 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Caday

The new translations are even worse than the KJV. Let me clue you in on something about these translations. God's original word came through the Holy Spirit into men in the Hebrew and Greek languages. The King James Version is the English translation of those languages. Since the KJV is done by men, it has the influence of the incompetency and sinfulness of men one time over God's original word. The newer translations have the flaws of men upon God's word two times over. That's why they're so horrible. You are wrong about the word "world" in Matthew 24:3 in the original Greek. The original word there was "a???" (ahee-OWN), which really is their word for age. Not world. It was a mistranslation. One of many. They were asking for the signs of the end of the age. Now go ahead and somehow spin that you were right on this too. Don't ever tell me that I neglect what is written in the NT again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 1:47 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I guess TH

does not allow for Greek fonts. The Greek word is pronounced ahee-OWN though. Knew you weren't going to get that right.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 7:20 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse

I jumped at the word and didn't look up the scripture reference. But your trouble is that you are relying on one instance of attention to a word in order to arrive at a conclusion. A standard rule of logic is that you cannot prove by example unless you can account for every example. The only thing you can accomplish by citing one example is to disprove a universal quantifier.

As for your translation opinion, that is an opinion. I have no problem taking another opinion. If memory serves, the newer literal translations depend on more manuscripts and research.

Finally, you still have neglected the fact that applying the literal interpretation practices to the NT contradicts the OT. Again, Romans 9:6ff, not all who are of Israel are of Israel. Again, Galations 3:7f, it is those who believe who are the true descendants of Abraham. The reason why circumcision is such an issue in the book of Galations is because of its role in determining who is to receive promise to Abraham. That Paul states that one is a descendant of Abraham without being circumcised linked the Gospel to the Abrahamic Covenant.

So, in terms of who are the people of God and the descendants of Abraham, you have neglected the NT in favor of a literal interpretation of the OT whether or not you have focused on the word for age--often used talking about something being forever and is also a 2nd declension noun and which, btw, is translated as age in my non KJV english translation in my interlinear.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 7:34 AM caday5 writes:

Jesse.

BTW, I did make one mistake. Your favorite word is a 3rd declension noun like the words for hope and night
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 11:09 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

yeah okay Caday

It's only my opinion that there were mistakes in the KJV and even more than in the newer translations. Not that I've looked it up or anything, even though I have. I tested you twice and you failed both times. First test was when I told you God promised His people, the JEWS that they would bring them back to their land. You said "that was debatable amongst fundamentalists", then I quoted scripture plain as day saying exactly what I said. Of course you say "oh yeah, that's true if you take God's word literally". I have to admit, that was funny. Second test was the word "world" in Matthew 24:3. You accused me of neglecting the NT, and as I showed you there, I know more about the NT than you do. The new translations do not go back to the original manuscripts because I've seen the new translations. Not one of them is better than the KJV, and there are flaws in there. Do yourself a favor and get a Strong's Concordance. You can misinterpret what you want and quote what you want, but anyone reading it with any fairness of mind knows God didn't mean that He was going to bring all Christians to the land of Israel. That land is for the Jews until the end of the age. The next age will have Jesus and his saints rule this Earth for a thousand years while Satan is in the bottomless pit..
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 11:18 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

cont.

The saints are those who have made the right choice in this life. There are even saints which are upon this Earth now. In the next age, they shall inherit the Earth and God's promise to THEM. That is a different promise than what is written in Deuteronomy, and Jeremiah which were given to the Jews. When that millennium is over, Satan is loosed out of his prison and is allowed to try to deceive the world again. The deceived then try to make war with the saints, then God stops them and ends that age. Then the books are opened. Then judgment is given. That's why knowing what the real word in Matthew 24:3 is so important, otherwise Revelation 20 makes no sense. That's why hardly anyone understands Revelation, especially the twentieth chapter. Traditional teaching doesn't, nor does any of the translations get the wording right. God has not casted away His people, Romans 11:1. Know it and accept it Caday.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 11:20 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

as for

"not all those that are of Israel are of Israel" comment. Do you know what Kenite is?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 3:40 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

I haven't failed anything here. Again, the NT writers do not share your interpretation of Jeremiah. This points to the problem that those employing a Dispensational hermeutic have, how to you reconcile using a literal interpretation to parts of the OT that are contradicted by a literal interpretation of the NT.

The pharisees of Jesus' day focused on the externals. This is why they struggled with Jesus when he said he would raise the temple in 3 days. They took the literal interpretation and Jesus was referring to himself. The pharisees thought that they were following Moses and were descendants of Abraham but Jesus pointed out that if they had and were, they would believe in him.

What you didn't understand from the beginning is that Christian Fundamentalists take different hermeneutical approaches to the Bible and have different eschatological beliefs. It is as if you assume that the school of thought you follow is the only one for fundamentalists. That is not the case. The one link I left has a completely different view from you and was signed by fundamentalists whom I personally know.

So for all of your crying about the literal interpretation of Jeremiah, you don't show how it fits in the new scheme laid out by the NT writers. That the only descendants of Abraham are those who believe the Gospel is a clear NT teaching. That there is no NT teaching that the Jews would return is clear. That is despite a plethora of NT teachings about the end times.

Finally, you do not reconcile how God's people in the NT must be servants who do not fight with worldly weapons with the need to do the opposite for the Jews to take back the land. In that is your motivation. I think you need a system that gives permission for Judeo-Christian followers to dominate-- that is what is needed to retake the promised land. That is not what God has called us to do.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 3:53 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

John 6:44 is clear, the saints are those whom God has drawn to Jesus. And those whom he draws come to Christ.

What you do not understand about the book of Galations and the issue of circumcision is that the salvation being offered to the Gentiles had everything to do with the Abrahamic covenant. This is why the circumcision party was saying that to complete the process, one must be circumcised. To this, Paul thoroughly includes Abraham and the promises made to him to argue against them. In fact, Paul says that to insist on circumcision to receive God's blessing, one has fallen away from Christ. And the blessings Paul refers to are the ones promised to Abraham.

Israeli academic, Neve Gordon, has criticized Israelis for making the land into an idol. Perhaps we Christians are also tempted to do the same when we take the temporal blessings of God out of context, thus making idols of them.

Finally, I agree that God has not cast away the Jews. But they can only be grafted back into the vine through believing the Gospel. That is the clear message from Romans 11--a chapter that has no mention of the return to the land and yet says how Jews will be grafted back in.

Again, our disagreement comes in how we join the OT and NT and which should interpret which.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, February, 23, 2009 3:54 PM caday5 writes:

Jesse

Regarding Romans 9:6, do you know who the children of the promise are vs children of the flesh or works? That is what Romans 9:6 refers to.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 4:16 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Man

NT writers? What is a NT writer? I thought God was. Everything written in Jeremiah 32 in the KJV when traced back to the Hebrew is correct because I looked myself. "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." Who did God drive out in His anger? Deuteronomy 30:4-5 "If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers." What is the non-literal translation of this verse? Who is He talking to "the land which thy fathers possessed". Circumcision of the foreskin was nothing but a public showing by the gentiles that they have accepted Christ as their Saviour, just as a baptism of water is. What really mattered then and what really matters now is that one has been circumcised and baptised by the Spirit. The children of the promise in Romans are God's elect. As is written in Revelation 11, God didn't choose these people because of any work they've done in this life, or else it wouldn't be called "grace". Grace is not a work and a work is not grace. God chose these people before they were put into the womb to become His prophets. Much of the later chapters are devoted to God's elect.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 4:36 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

cont.

I'm sure you think one of God's elect is just a Christian, but that's nowhere near the case. God's true elect are the prophets in this age. In the last generation, there will be more of them than at anytime in this age's history. What Romans 11 is about is God's elect in the last generation, and how there will be seven thousand of them. The rest will be blinded to an extent, that their eyes should not see and their eyes should not hear to this day. Only when the blowing of the seventh trump will that spirit of slumber be lifted. I know what traditional teaching says of Romans 11 and I can concluslively prove them wrong. The election of grace are the chosen prophets. In the last generation there will be seven thousand of them. That's why it says God has reserved seven thousand men who have not bowed to Ba'al. Ba'al in Elijah's and God's eyes was more than a pagan god. I know traditional teachers say God told Elijah that those seven thousand were seven thousand who were in Israel at that time, but that's not correct. That's why Paul stated on his own "Even so there is a remnant according to the election of grace unto this day" after reiterating God and Elijah's conversation. How does God reserve to Himself a person? They haven't lived yet, that's how. If those seven thousand were in Israel at that time, then none could be living still. Paul did make sure to put down the word "remnant" for a reason. In the final generation, those seven thousand will live and become God's prophets. Towards the end, they will all be in Israel to die in an earthquake. At that point, their jobs will be done and they will leave the rest of this creation to make their choice.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 4:37 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

oops

their ears should not hear
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 8:26 AM caday5 writes:

again

we are in disagreement over interpretation, not translation. In addition, history, before Christ came, gave you your literal fulfillment. The Jews did return from Babylonian captivity. And if you want to be literal, from the website I referred you to:

"No New Testament writer foresees a regathering of ethnic Israel in the land, as did the prophets of the Old Testament after the destruction of the first temple in 586 B.C"

Show that statement to be wrong.

Regarding the NT writers, certainly God spoke through them. But if you want to emphasize that God is the author, doesn't that make my case stronger? So that God does not talk of the return of the Jews to the land in the NT even though he speaks of the whole NT time period.

Regarding who are God's elect, that is his chosen people, then I suggest you take a literal interpretation to verses like John 6:44f and Romans 9. God's elect are those whom God leads to Christ and that leading is always effective.

Your intermingling of a dispensational eschatology and approach to Revelation with Romans is not warranted by a literal interpretation of the NT.

Finally, the behavior necessary to reconquer the promised land is completely against any literal interpretation of how God wants us to behave. We are called to be servants and to love, not to dominate and belittle. That perhaps is the reason why some take the hermeneutical approach you have taken
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:00 AM Snow Knight writes:

caday5

we have proven ourselves over and over again in this matter--as far as the land is concerned "inherit the earth" covers it quite well--wouldent you think?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:02 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I'm done with you

You are ignorant beyond belief. NT writers have God speaking through them? My point with God being the author is that these writers are authoring God's word for themselves. How can God be speaking through these idiots when they get the actual translations wrong time and time again? They're awful. Then you quote them as if I'm supposed to say "well hell, they must be right. They are NT writers." They're idiots who are translating God's word to suit themselves. They have a mindset going in, as you do, and then interpret things to fit their opinions. No wonder they suck so bad. To prove my point, you and everyone else can find the actual original words from the Old Testament and New Testament. They're out there and anyone if they do their work can find them. "God speaks through them to tell them that His original word isn't what He really meant. God told them to change things around a bit." That is your assertion, right? I call on all that read this to get a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and compare it to the KJV, then to the NT. The Strong's traces every word back to the original writing before the translation of the KJV. Every word in God's original form through the Holy Spirit. Everyone with it can translate the KJV back to God's original writing through the Holy Spirit. As many errors that are in the KJV, there are A TON more in the NT. God speaks through these NT writers? That's pathetic considering the errors they make. No more. I finally give up man. Your ignorance is monumental.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:03 AM Snow Knight writes:

Jesse

You are a soldier and I admire your patience!!!You have proved your case many times. I t is cadays problem if he still refuses to aknowledge it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:22 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

Snow

Thanks. I appreciate that. I've worked hard in tracing the KJV back to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew. I also looked up these new translation Bibles and tested them as well. They were all MUCH worse than the KJV. Then this guy thinks the NT are better than what God's original word was, then quotes the writers as if they have some special authority. Don't think I've heard of people being this ignorant who study so hard, but I guess that's the time we live in. These are the same people who meet year after year during the Easter holiday to talk about how Jesus was actually eaten by dogs and was never resurrected. These are Catholic priests and theologians mind you. As is written, in the last days there will come a falling away from the faith. I wonder if anyone in here knows Hebrew or Greek and has read either the OT or NT in their original language, then read the KJV and new translations so they can also say that the new translations are the absolute worst. They shouldn't even be read. No wonder he is so lost.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:38 AM caday5 writes:

So basically,

you are confirming what I said, you have placed a precedence on the OT over the NT though the OT is about Christ veiled while the NT is about Christ revealed.

What Jesus and Paul said are in agreement. Their definitions for the descendants of Abraham are not the definitions used by the Pharisees of their time. You can be done with me all you want and I could care less. What is more important is the Gospel message and the fact that all of the Bible is about Jesus. And the Gospel that Jesus gave in no way confirms your interpretation of Jeremiah--which was fulfilled during OT times anyway. The Jews did return from the Babylonian captivity where God drove them in his anger.

So be done. Encourage the Israeli gov't to dominate and steal from the Palestinian people in violation of God's Word. As long as you can believe that you are righteous, it matters not.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 9:54 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

are you that mixed up?

I don't mean the NT being worse as in the New Testament being worse, you moron. I'm saying the NT as in the new translations are worse. That's what my whole point was about how each translation is worse than the one previous to it since it has more of the influence of men upon it. You can't be this dumb, can you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 10:27 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

I guess also

That the armies that come against Jerusalem is a good thing in your eyes? This is your interpretation. The world is going to rise up against Israel because they don't like them having that land as was written in Matt. 24, Luke 21 and so on. So the prophecy of the world coming against Israel shows that you want to be on their side, right? Even though it's clearly written that these are the bad guys. They come and meet at Megiddo to take over Israel away from the Jews, since they are the ones there. Satan does go after the woman that beared the man child, which was Jesus. The genius of the point of that verse is to separate it from Christian and Jew. The man child being Jesus, anyone believing upon him is a Christian. Satan comes against the one that beared him, who was Mary. Mary was a Jew. These prophecies written in the NT show that God wants the Jews to have Israel, and will have them in the latter days. Or are you actually against this assertion too? Maybe the armies lining against Israel, including the armies of the zsrab countries and the East, are the good guys. Who knew? I'd ask for an explanation to all that, but it's just going to agitate me.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, February, 24, 2009 10:31 AM Jesse "The Mind" Norman writes:

TH had a braincramp

that "zsrab" was Arab, because I doublechecked it. Meds are really messing my typing up so I have to doublecheck now. I did type it right. Wonder how that happened?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive