Katrina: A Judgement Of God On New Orleans

[studyhound]

There's a guy by the name of Bill Koenig, a reporter who works out of the White House, who is proposing the idea that every time the US pressures Israel to either give up part of their land or make concessions to those who wish to divide up Israel, a natural disaster soon follows. He has tracked this phenomenon for some time now, apparently.

I am beginning to wonder if he is not on to something.

Ya I doubt that, Modern Israel has about as much to do with biblical Israel than the U.S. does.

That said this is not a judgment on New Orleans if it was the hurricane woulndnt have missed it and the ciy would have recived the fullforce and been for th most part underwater.

just my :coin::coin:

[studyhound]

Leave it to the French to build a city beneath sea level -- on the coast.

Dorks.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

You may be right, but I was waiting to see if something developed after seeing this administration pressure Israel to give up Gaza and those settlements in the West Bank. And to be honest with you, I was somewhat hoping that nothing would, so I could confirm my suspicions of Koenig.

However, seeing that the withdrawal from Gaza, etc. is a major setback for Israel, even more significant than the Oslo accords, one would expect that the resulting "event" would also be significant, if his theory holds water. According to most forecasts, this hurricane's effects will be far reaching, even beyond the material devastation that is expected in Louisianna and the surrounding areas. The ripple effect from the oil disruption in the Gulf alone is a major concern.

I'm still not signing on to his thesis, but he does have my attention now.

(BTW, I unequivocally believe the withdrawal to be a grave mistake on the part of the US and Israel.)

Forgive me for harping, but where in the world do you consider the withdrawal to be a grave mistake on Israel's part? Instead of basing our unequivocal support of Israel on Genesis 12, which is clearly symbolic, why don't you and I employ a bit more common sense and consider the basic human right to life? I'm seriously considering going on a two-week trip to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with Christian Peacemaker Teams in January...if you want to view the situation, by all means, come along. Let me know if you're interested. Take a look with others at the systematic dehumanization of Palestinians and see if you're so ready to hop on Koenig's bandwagon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nasty stuff going on all around the globe all the time. If you and I hang on the ruminations of some journalist blasting off hypotheses and then look for some sort of happening to substantiate (however faintly) his claims, we're in the wrong place.

Israel did the right thing in this case for the sake of its citizens and the sake of the fledgling Palestinian state. A step in the right direction towards mutual, practical steps in peacemaking between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Oh, and the settlements were ILLEGAL in the first place. That's the long and short of it. That sound you hear faintly in the distance is the applause of people around the world who finally are seeing sensible people make sensible decisions.

By the way, we're in the middle of hurricane season, if you haven't noticed. Take a look at the cycle of hurricanes in the last 15 years or so. We're right in the middle of the roughest section of the year with the threat of hurricanes. Use your head, my man. Dig deeper.

[Cleombrotus]

Ya I doubt that, Modern Israel has about as much to do with biblical Israel than the U.S. does.

just my :coin::coin:

"Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" - Jesus



What do you make of that, studyhound?

[GreatWhiteHype2]

"Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" - Jesus



What do you make of that, studyhound?

Again, consider the possibility that Jesus is talking figuratively.

First question: who was he talking to?
Second: how did the listeners respond with their lives after he left them?
Third: What does he say will happen to them? And how should they respond?
Fourth: How does this eschatological statement by Jesus link up with 2 Thessalonians 2, and especially 1 Timothy 4?

It is my contention that both Jesus and Paul were talking about the great troubles the church would go through in the future. In short, it wasn't going to be a cakewalk. The early church found this out, and I don't think it'll be long before we the present-day church experience it as well...and personally I welcome it (as masochistic as that sounds). Maybe finally the church will grow some (you know what I mean) and recognize the message of Christ IS revolutionary, and heck, we might have to lose our lives in the pursuit of sharing this message!

I see a big difference between this figurative Jerusalem Jesus is referring to here and the physical Jerusalem Jesus looked at, weeping, and said,
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. (Luke 13:34-35)

The church (invisible and visible followers of Christ) are the inheritors of the title "people of God," "Israel," "Jerusalem." And it's gonna be crazy hard in the coming days to be a believer...I know one thing for certain, you won't have those people coming to church because it's "good for their kids" or going to church because "it's time to settle down."

[Cleombrotus]

Again, consider the possibility that Jesus is talking figuratively.

Let's not.

The context (Luke 21:20-24) is clear that He is speaking literally. Titus destroyed Jerusalem literally in 70 AD, on the 9th day of T'Av, (our August 14th, the day that Gaza was evacuated) coincidentally the exact same day that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it centuries before.

If you wish to make the assertion that it is figurative, you had better establish that before you proceed with the extrapolations that follow.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

[Cyrus Johnson]

Leave it to the French to build a city beneath sea level -- on the coast.

Dorks.

Actually the French built the original city on a bit of natural high ground in the lower Mississippi, in 1718. It was built there because it was high ground (in the shape of a crescent, hence the nickname).

It was Americans who greatly expanded the city to the lowlands in the 20^th century, by building up dykes and pumping water. Ironically, pumping causes subsidence, making the low lands even lower.

And it's about 10-15 miles from the coast, up river...don't know if that actually counts as on the coast.

[Cleombrotus]

Forgive me for harping, but where in the world do you consider the withdrawal to be a grave mistake on Israel's part?

Time will tell, won't it?

Instead of basing our unequivocal support of Israel on Genesis 12, which is clearly symbolic, why don't you and I employ a bit more common sense and consider the basic human right to life?

I never said I have "unequivocal support of Israel", first of all. I do, however, support their right to exist as a free nation unhindered and unmolested by their Arab neighbors, and their right to defend themselves against aggression. That to me, is the basic human right to life.

I'm seriously considering going on a two-week trip to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with Christian Peacemaker Teams in January...if you want to view the situation, by all means, come along. Let me know if you're interested.

Well, quit considering it and just go. I've already been and am planning to go again next year in April.

Take a look with others at the systematic dehumanization of Palestinians and see if you're so ready to hop on Koenig's bandwagon.

Go into the Arab Quarter in Jerusalm with one or two of your buddies and talk to the Arab shopkeepers. Ask them where they think they have a better standard of living. While you are in Samaria, if you go there, talk to some of the victims of the "suicide" bombers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nasty stuff going on all around the globe all the time. If you and I hang on the ruminations of some journalist blasting off hypotheses and then look for some sort of happening to substantiate (however faintly) his claims, we're in the wrong place.

Israel did the right thing in this case for the sake of its citizens and the sake of the fledgling Palestinian state. A step in the right direction towards mutual, practical steps in peacemaking between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Oh, and the settlements were ILLEGAL in the first place. That's the long and short of it. That sound you hear faintly in the distance is the applause of people around the world who finally are seeing sensible people make sensible decisions.

By the way, we're in the middle of hurricane season, if you haven't noticed. Take a look at the cycle of hurricanes in the last 15 years or so. We're right in the middle of the roughest section of the year with the threat of hurricanes. Use your head, my man. Dig deeper.

Talk to me when you return

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Let's not.

The context (Luke 21:20-24) is clear that He is speaking literally. Titus destroyed Jerusalem literally in 70 AD, on the 9th day of T'Av, (our August 14th, the day that Gaza was evacuated) coincidentally the exact same day that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed it centuries before.

If you wish to make the assertion that it is figurative, you had better establish that before you proceed with the extrapolations that follow.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

If we're concerned with context and pigeonholing this verse according to our understanding, if you back up in the same batch of verses to verse 8, Jesus says,

"Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. When you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away."

What's the practical application to this section?

"For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,'" Up until 70 a.d., history reveals to us one man (or possibly two) that had a Messiah complex. Simon Bar Giora was a leader of the Jewish people who entered the city in the spring of 69 a.d. and thereafter ruled as king. Coins bore the legend 'Redemption of Zion', indicating that there was a religious aspect to Simon's bid for power. This does not prove that he was considered the Messiah, but it is likely. The fact that he wore a royal robe in the Temple is another indication. John of Gischala is the only other in this time period who even resembles a Messiah figure. One (or maybe two) doesn't by any means equal "many."

Second, "when you hear of wars and revolutions, do not be frightened." Again, pax Romana ensured the lack of any major revolutions; that is, until our buddies the Zionists decided to make it happen themselves.

Third, "These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away." Two things to focus on: the end. and will not come right away.
If the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d. was indeed the end, the early church didn't perceive it as such. In fact, by then the "Jesus sect" had separated themselves by and large from Judaism at large (and the Jews didn't mind them leaving...they considered them a nuisance). After the destruction of Jerusalem, "the end" didn't come, church leaders at this time had to only consider it as the beginning. The temple was destroyed, and they were already separate (and growing further apart by the minute) from the Jews. The church had already been rapidly spreading up the Mediterranean rim and into Asia Minor, and even into Rome (where Paul leaves us).

And the fact that you and I are here discussing this issue nearly two thousand years later should solidify the case that the end didn't come right away. (That it, unless you've seen Jesus riding by recently on a white horse, and dead people coming out of their graves to be caught up with him). If that's the case, let me know quickly!

Consider the idea that it's figurative. Just for a second.

[Unpastorized]

Luke 13:2-5
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? [3] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. [4] Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? [5] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

I wonder...What are we to repent of? Sin? What is sin?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

[Cleombrotus]

Consider the idea that it's figurative. Just for a second.

Consider that it's not. Just for a second.

What is the need to allegorize it? Unless it is to support your eisegesis. There is no basis for the assumption. When the figure system is employed, it is unavoidable. In this case it is non-existent.

Tell me, if you have understanding of interpretation, what figure is being used, how is it being used, and where is it used likewise in Scripture?

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Luke 13:2-5
And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? [3] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. [4] Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? [5] I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

I wonder...What are we to repent of? Sin? What is sin?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

I don't understand a word you just quoted from what seems to be the Bible. Do you have a translation from the last 200 years?

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Consider that it's not. Just for a second.

What is the need to allegorize it? Unless it is to support your eisegesis. There is no basis for the assumption. When the figure system is employed, it is unavoidable. In this case it is non-existent.

Tell me, if you have understanding of interpretation, what figure is being used, how is it being used, and where is it used likewise in Scripture?

Cleombrotus,

Your "airtight" figure system makes about as much practical sense as listening to some fundamentalist journalist spouting ideas without realizing someone somewhere is listening to him and actually taking him for real. I'm willing to consider that your hypothesis is true, but the historical facts don't back it up.

In fact, it's pretty easy to allegorize it, when you and I consider that verses 10 and 11 could very easily describe what's going on in the present day, and verses 12-19 describe completely the situation many of the members of the early church found themselves in pretty quickly(read Acts).

Again, verse 20 talks of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, but if my memory serves me well, there was only one Roman army under the command of Titus. Correct me if I'm wrong. Further adding credence to the allegorization prospects

[Unpastorized]

I don't understand a word you just quoted from what seems to be the Bible.

Im sure you dont. But im sure id get a kick out of the way the new translations read. Can you show me?

[GreatWhiteHype2]

I don't understand a word you just quoted from what seems to be the Bible.

Im sure you dont.

I'm sure I don't too.