There have been a number of discussions on this topic from commentors on Jihad Watch, especially in reaction to commments of various Eastern Catholic prelates from the Middle East. This has raised questions that reveal rifts between Dispensationalist, supercessionist, and Confessional Reformed Christians on the place of ethnic Israel in Christian theology.
This is an issue on which I plan to post some comments before long.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Kepha --
ReplyDeleteThis is probably a better place to discuss theology, which can sometimes rattle a few cages over at Jihad Watch.
I am currently reading about what appears to me to be a grooming of Mohammed by the Arab Christians of his time, particularly this Waraqah spoken of in "Muhammad: his life based on the earliest sources" by Martin Lings, a convert to Islam.
According to Lings, the prevailing religious thought was that God's next intervention after Jesus Christ should be not a Jew, but an Arab.
###
To my way of thinking, this seems an awfully bold thing to decide beforehand. It appears from this book that Mohammed was selected and taught by those who would intersperse this new religion with Christian concepts.
Waraqah is said to have built a hunger among the Arabs for a new prophet based on his shoehorning Mohammed into John 16:13 -- which most Christians interpret[ed] as referring to Pentecost.
So...
Jesus was planted in the Koran and Mohammed was painstakingly "found" in the Christian scriptures and now the circle is complete. Judaism, the bedrock of both faiths, is just a third wheel!
Ugh.
Interesting comment, Heidi. I, for one, think that it is utterly foolish to think that Islam "continues" the tradition of Biblical prophecy.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the Muslim Isa and the Christian Jesus are very great, including the Qu'ran's unwillingness to recognize Jesus Christ's death on the cross.
I am of the mind that Jesus, back then, was a good man to have "on our side", so Muhammad appropriated him just as many modern radicals do.
Sorry but I realy dont want about theolagy, but as I have said, I believe that God promised this 20000 square miles though and he keeps his promises.
ReplyDeleteI have another question though: this "Fairzufan" seems to doge all my questions, while he has no problem always stating his alleged supperiority in Intelect and knowloge.
His views have realy disturbed me and have me think much more negative about the Catholic Church then before. That a CHRISTIAN could become so legalistic to think that Sharia is no diffrent then laws that are INSPIRED by Church teachings (they not need to be equal though the laws in Francos Spain were diffrent then in the Spain of Charls 5, despite being inspired by the same ideas). And as far as I know, Catholic laws are there to influence man and bring him nearer to God and not some perfect orders sent from above to be obayed just because the human is a slave and has to obay the "perfect law", why, Allah sed so!(While tradittionaly some parts of Sharia are interpretable the Core is set in stone an not changeble, so its 40 lashes in a tribal society and 40 lashes in a highly complex urban society). Secondly, I thought that according to the conservative Catholic ideal the Pope is only head of the Church and while the laws may be "inspired" the head of state remains a head of state. On the other hand according to the Islamic ideal ´there can be no head of state but the Khalif (Abu Bakr didnt tollerate tribes which, while remaining compleetly Muslim, wanted to set up their own heads of state, and during the "glorious" first 100 years of conquest all chiefs and kings that accsepted Islam, became subordined to the Khalif. And that there can be a Christian theocracy according to "Fairzufan", was the most disturbing thing for me, I think if you can take one thing from the New Testament and the early fathers it is the fact that there can be no Theocracy before the second comming. Are such theocratic views common among Catholics (I have little experiance with them so I ask)?
Are pro Muslim sentiments so common among them too? Are there many who state that they want to replace the secular constitution with a theocracy and that they would rather have Sharia and Khalifate then a secular government, because Muslim fullfillment of soulless rituals to get into a paradise that is a drunken orgy, is somhow nearer to "true western Christian civilisation)?
I have noticed that I am mostly ignored on JW, is it because of my language? Please answe this question
Anonymous, you've raised a lot of interesting points about a thread of comment apparently carried over from _Jihad Watch_.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I admit that I am neither a Roman Catholic nor an Eastern Orthodox. I generally feel most at home in those churches and fellowships stemming from the Swiss-Rhenish-Puritan Reformation ("Calvinist" or Reformed). While I am generally biblicist and confessionalist, with little sympathy for theological modernism, I do have some [slightly critical] appreciation for the Anglo-American Great Awakening and European Pietism.
At the same time, I admit to being a critic of 19th century Dispensationalism. To me, the fulfillment of God's promise of a land to the seed of Abraham was met in the days when David and Solomon ruled everything between the Euphrates and the wadis of the Sinai Desert. God's chosen king, the Lord Jesus Christ, has sway over all heaven and earth, which he is now conquering by his Word and Spirit.
The current state of Israel, to me, is one more nation among nations. Perhaps it is one that deserves a lot of respect for its upholding minority rights, rule of law, and political compact as it struggles for survival against a gaggle of petty tyrannies. But I am not so sure that it is a harbinger of the countdown to the final judgement.
As for the term "theocracy", I note that it is a word that Josephus coined to explain the sort of government the Jews had to the Graeco-Roman world. The word means "rule of God"--and this rule of God expressed itself in a tribal, semi-republican, federation under the Judges; a kingdom following Saul; a satrapy of the Persian Empire and Alexander; a state under the Hasmonaean priest-kings; and as a less-than-savory kingdom under the Herods. The force of the word is to describe a people and state ruled by God himsels, rather than as a state governed by clerics (as it is mistakenly used today).
As for Islam, I couldn't agree with you more. See my later post.
regards,
Kepha
Also, Anonymous, as a confessional Calvinist, I hold that the "only head of the church" is not the Pope or any other mortal man, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who since his resurrection and ascension, has been reigning from heaven.
ReplyDeleteHi again Kepha,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of this new JW blogger Roland Shirk? Are you in California where Jihad Watch "is?"
Roland Shirk has written a couple of posts which I think are rather good. But I am not in California.
ReplyDelete