Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian Zionism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christian Zionism

    The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts. These invariably teach forms of “dispensationalism,” which draw their theory, to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.

    http://themillenniumreport.com/2018/...cofield-bible/

  • #2
    The territory of Herzl's aspirational Jewish state is the same as the land of the covenant of Genesis 15:18:

    "Area: from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates."
    Theodore Herzl, Complete Diaries, Volume II, page 711.

    In the same day YHWH made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
    Genesis 15:18


    This is different to the promised land of Canaan which was for the descendants of Isaac.

    And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their Elohim.
    Genesis 17:8

    And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
    But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
    Genesis 17:20-21

    Comment


    • #3
      Saxon is an shortened form of Isaac-son. The Hebrew word for covenant is bryt, and circumcision is only applied to males, whe in Hebrew are called eysh. Put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British. Also, Isaac's father Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, and Isaac's name means laughter, which has a numerical value of 100. The hundred was an administrative group of people in Anglo-Saxon England with the purpose of resolving disputes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
        Saxon is an shortened form of Isaac-son.
        No it isn't. It is noxas, backwards. And noxas is a compound of the negative determiner, 'no', with the acronym, XAS, which stands for X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy. So Saxon is really a shortened, reverse form of "no X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy"--which actually makes perfect sense when, looking backwards through human history, you consider that the early Saxons lived in ages of the world during which there was no X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy.


        Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
        The Hebrew word for covenant is bryt, and circumcision is only applied to males, whe in Hebrew are called eysh. Put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British.
        But why put those two words together? And, if you're gonna put 'em together, then why not put them together this-wise: eysh-bryt, or Ishbrit?

        Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
        Also, Isaac's father Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, and Isaac's name means laughter, which has a numerical value of 100. The hundred was an administrative group of people in Anglo-Saxon England with the purpose of resolving disputes.
        Your post has a numerical value of 100!

        All my ancestors are human.
        PS: All your ancestors are human.
        PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
          But why put those two words together?
          Because some people can recognise patterns in language.

          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
          And, if you're gonna put 'em together, then why not put them together this-wise: eysh-bryt, or Ishbrit?
          Because pattern recognition involves discarding information that has no associative value.

          "If you can't see the signs, staring you in the face, then you're no good to me." Dr Nicholas Rush, Stargate Universe.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
            Because some people can recognise patterns in language.
            Let me rephrase my question: Why do you put those two particular words together? You're not just parroting some "scholar's" "research", are you?


            Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
            Because pattern recognition involves discarding information that has no associative value.
            In other words, you're motivated to have the word, 'British', be derivative of a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh', so naturally, whatever's not in keeping with your motivation, you'll simply discard as having "no associative value".
            All my ancestors are human.
            PS: All your ancestors are human.
            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
              Let me rephrase my question: Why do you put those two particular words together?
              Because of the context.

              Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
              You're not just parroting some "scholar's" "research", are you?
              No, I'm not.

              Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
              In other words, you're motivated to have the word, 'British', be derivative of a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh', so naturally, whatever's not in keeping with your motivation, you'll simply discard as having "no associative value".
              No, I'm motivated to find associations that have meaning within their original context.

              If you consistently get it wrong, then what use are you?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                Because of the context.
                Because of what context?

                You see how I am cornering you into mumbling obscurities.

                Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                No, I'm not.
                Oh? Then please do lay out for me your "research" as to why you claim that the word 'British' was derived from a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'.


                Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                No, I'm motivated to find associations that have meaning within their original context.
                Associations of what, with what?
                And what, exactly, is this "original context" you are talking of?

                Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                If you consistently get it wrong, then what use are you?
                Get what wrong?

                Are you saying that if I continue to ask you questions you can't answer regarding your own pontifications in this thread, then I'm of no use to you?

                All my ancestors are human.
                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  Because of what context?
                  The covenant of circumcision.

                  Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  You see how I am cornering you into mumbling obscurities.
                  Yeah, I'm sure everyone's very impressed by your superior grasp of the issues.

                  Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  Oh? Then please do lay out for me your "research" as to why you claim that the word 'British' was derived from a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'.
                  What claim was that, specifically?

                  Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  Get what wrong?
                  You said that "you're motivated to have the word, 'British', be derivative of a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'", which is false.
                  Then you said that I claimed that the derivation existed, which is also false. Derivations and associations are different things.

                  Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  Are you saying that if I continue to ask you questions you can't answer regarding your own pontifications in this thread, then I'm of no use to you?
                  You're attempting to divert from they fact that you're just trolling.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
                    Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles[λόγια] of God.
                    Romans 3:1-2

                    In Genesis 17 YHWH identifies as El Shaday, and Elohim establishes the covenant with Abraham and his descendants for the land of Canaan and circumcision. The covenant applied to Isaac and his descendants, not to Ishmael. Later in Genesis 35:11 Elohim identifies as El Shaday to Jacob, who is called Israel, and in Genesis 48 Ephraim and Manessah are included amongst the sons of Jacob.

                    Paul doesn't mention El Shaday or the role of Elohim or the land of Canaan.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                      Saxon is an shortened form of Isaac-son. The Hebrew word for covenant is bryt, and circumcision is only applied to males, whe in Hebrew are called eysh. Put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British. Also, Isaac's father Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, and Isaac's name means laughter, which has a numerical value of 100. The hundred was an administrative group of people in Anglo-Saxon England with the purpose of resolving disputes.
                      Made my day, aside from the coffee squirting out of my nose.
                      Going to watch tennis now, will be more enlightening than this rubbish.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jonahdog View Post
                        Made my day, aside from the coffee squirting out of my nose.
                        Going to watch tennis now, will be more enlightening than this rubbish.
                        Enjoy your delusion.

                        But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
                        2 Corinthians 12:16

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                          Saxon is an shortened form of Isaac-son. The Hebrew word for covenant is bryt, and circumcision is only applied to males, whe in Hebrew are called eysh. Put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British. Also, Isaac's father Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born, and Isaac's name means laughter, which has a numerical value of 100. The hundred was an administrative group of people in Anglo-Saxon England with the purpose of resolving disputes.

                          Anglo Israel-ism which is a bunch of rubbish. I don't usually side with Jonahdog, but I am on his side in this case.

                          June is Gay Pride Month.Tolerance and diversity? ☞ More like tolerate perversity.☠

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sherman View Post
                            Anglo Israel-ism which is a bunch of rubbish. I don't usually side with Jonahdog, but I am on his side in this case.
                            Rejecting an idea without reason as much of a failure as promoting an idea based on a fallacy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And Elohim said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
                              And Elohim said unto him, I am El Shaday: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
                              Genesis 35:10-11

                              And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.
                              Genesis 48:14

                              And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
                              Genesis 48:19

                              The younger brother Ephraim became a multitude/fullness of nations.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member...lth_of_Nations

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X