A Few Historical References

[IshChayil]

Nonsense about insider trading. But what drives insider trading laws, and what bothers most people about it? Is the issue of fairness. Trading on insider information is not a victimless crime. There is another party on the other side of that transaction, since the number of shares in the market is fixed. What are that person’s (or investment fund’s) rights?
...
Jews have a bad reputation for financial corruption. This is why there are many conspiracy theories about how they control the money behind the scenes with the Rothchilds. I wouldn't take the Orthodox Rabbi comment seriously. During the 1930's in Germany, there was a long list of Jewish crooks in the market prior before the rise of National Socialism. If they want to gamble with other people's money go to a casino -not the stock market

I'm not following how your Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque claim that "Jews are some how more corrupt then other cultures historically" helps your argument at all? If you think prison time is a just punishment for someone buying a stock on a tip, you're assuming the system is a zero sum game and I can't help you with that;
just don't blame the Jews because Israel has gone from 3rd world to 1st world in record time.

The antisemitism you referenced in germany was religiously based on the teachings of the church (see Martin Luther post "christians should kill the jews")
and on the success of Jewish professionals in all areas of German social life (11% of doctors in pre-war Germany were Jews). TOday we have 23% of the nobel prize winners; "you shall be the head and not the tail" G-d is true though all men be liars.
Anyway, the Jewish slam was a huge misdirect.

The point is big government is the Satan's model of control. Big government killed Christ (yes it had to happen, but big government did it; hard to find bigger than Rome).
Big government crushed the polygamy of the Mormons in Utah; forcing them to outlaw it to this day.
If not for big government I'm confident polygamy would be legal in several states today and I'd be permitted to bring my wives to the retreat this month from out of the country.
The United States has been a light in the world but that light is dimming as the government control grows in preparation for the beast.

This is why the biblical libertarianism as laid out by @FollowingHim and @andrew makes sense to me. Let the government break stuff (military) and leave my kids alone to learn at home and if they don't learn about evolution and contraceptives at age 10 as I did.
less government, more freedom, get out of our churches, synagogues, and kids' education, and all other sorts of "fairness doctrines" and "social justice" programs.
THere is a Judge of the Earth and He is not Uncle Sam.

 

[rustywest4]

@ZecAustin drops the mic like a boss and walks off stage wearing his Patriarch shades! :cross::bible:

 

[The Revolting Man]

,

@ZecAustin drops the mic like a boss and walks off stage wearing his Patriarch shades! :cross::bible:

Lol, thank you Rusty. I'm surprised because that's what I was going for and that almost never works out.

 

[IshChayil]

Quick thought experiment Sun. Imagine for a moment that you live in a country where the vast majority of the population are anti-Christian, and the government is therefore guaranteed to be non-Christian, whatever political system is used. (this isn't hard to imagine as it's actually the reality in most of the world). What philosophy would you prefer the secular government had?
1) Individual freedom (libertarianism or whatever you want to call it)
2) Statism, the state defines what is best for everyone and enforces their view on the masses (secular communism, Islamic sharia, or anything in-between)

Which government would allow you to actually have a church and live a quiet life spreading the Gospel to your neighbours? 1 of course. Now that government might also let your gay neighbours try and evangelise you, and let the local brothel put up a full-nude billboard across the road from your kids school. But they'll gladly let your church put up an equally enormous nativity scene and ignore any complaints that it was "offensive", and they'd let you school your kids however you liked. So you'd get along ok.

While the communists or islamists would burn down your church and shoot / decapitate you, and our more "moderate" Western secular democratic rulers might let you have a church but forbid you from advertising it in any way and force your kids into a state-controlled indoctrination centre.

I'd choose 1 over 2 in a heartbeat. That's why libertarianism is compatible with Christianity.

This is a very nice way to put it.
In Indonesia the mayor of Jakarta, a Christian, just got put in the slammer for 2 years for "defaming Islam" while Indonesia claims to be pluralistic, etc. the Mulsim majority in that democracy invariably legislate their bias.

 

[FollowingHim]

He also limited the influence of even Israelite kings to ministering His law, not adding to it, or taking away from it.

Secular government should likewise be about simply ministering His law. They're never going to minister the entire law, because they don't believe it. But the crucial elements of the Law are simply protecting people from each other (don't murder, rape, steal etc). This is the realm of secular government. Libertarianism / classical liberalism gets the government focused back simply on these basic principles, and out of everywhere else. It leaves the church free to retain in-house policies on the more "religious" aspects, such as personal morality where that does not directly harm anybody else (consensual homosexuality for instance, or simpler things like feasts and food laws), and enforce these only on those individuals who choose voluntarily to join the church. You therefore end up with a two-part governmental system, a secular government enforcing interpersonal relationship matters on everyone, and church government enforcing moral matters on only church members. This is the closest possible situation to biblical government that we can live in within a secular society.

Of course, all of this is just hypothetical talk. None of our countries are likely to become libertarian any time soon, we're well on track towards a system of global communism. It's got to get a lot worse before Yeshua returns and militarily re-establishes His theocracy.
Society is doomed, doomed I say...

 

[sun]

I'm not following how your Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque claim that "Jews are some how more corrupt then other cultures historically" helps your argument at all? If you think prison time is a just punishment for someone buying a stock on a tip, you're assuming the system is a zero sum game and I can't help you with that;
just don't blame the Jews because Israel has gone from 3rd world to 1st world in record time.

The antisemitism you referenced in germany was religiously based on the teachings of the church (see Martin Luther post "christians should kill the jews")
and on the success of Jewish professionals in all areas of German social life (11% of doctors in pre-war Germany were Jews). TOday we have 23% of the nobel prize winners; "you shall be the head and not the tail" G-d is true though all men be liars.
Anyway, the Jewish slam was a huge misdirect.

The point is big government is the Satan's model of control. Big government killed Christ (yes it had to happen, but big government did it; hard to find bigger than Rome).
Big government crushed the polygamy of the Mormons in Utah; forcing them to outlaw it to this day.
If not for big government I'm confident polygamy would be legal in several states today and I'd be permitted to bring my wives to the retreat this month from out of the country.
The United States has been a light in the world but that light is dimming as the government control grows in preparation for the beast.

This is why the biblical libertarianism as laid out by @FollowingHim and @andrew makes sense to me. Let the government break stuff (military) and leave my kids alone to learn at home and if they don't learn about evolution and contraceptives at age 10 as I did.
less government, more freedom, get out of our churches, synagogues, and kids' education, and all other sorts of "fairness doctrines" and "social justice" programs.
THere is a Judge of the Earth and He is not Uncle Sam.

A 'Hot tip' is usually only someone elses 'opinion' on the stock that may or may not be correct. In other words it is 'speculation'. Insider trading is when someone trades in a stock on receipt of confidential information that may affect the share price of the stock and which isn't available to the general public.

If everyone believed that such unfair advantages were common, then they would be unwilling to participate in the capital markets, and that would harm the economy.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/061202.asp

Your point about antisemitism being religiously based is slightly true. It was based more on jews as a distinct race. After Jewish emancipation during the Enlightenment, or later religious antisemitism, was slowly replaced in the 19th century by racial prejudice stemming from the idea of Jews as a distinct race. In Germany, theories of Aryan racial superiority and charges of Jewish domination in the economy and politics in addition with other antiJewish propaganda led to the rise of antisemitism. The growth of antisemitic behavior led to Adolf Hitler's rise to power and eventual extermination of six million jews.

Your point about big government is a false dichotomy. The reason the Roman government killed Christ was because they were pagan not because it was big government. The strong prevailing belief in monogamy by Christians back then and now is what got polygamy outlawed. Local state governments that were conservative and christian like Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi and other states would have outlawed polygamy also; likewise, many local counties would have too. Polygamy would still be illegal today and ironically, it would have taken a Supreme Court case like in the Loving vs Virginia Court in which interracial marriage was outlawed for polygamy to have a chance. Even at the state level polygamy would still be illegal. So much for your hatred for big government. You still wouldn't be able to bring your wives to the retreat.

Moreover, how can you explain how Syria under Assad and Iraq under Sadaam Hussein which were both central (big) governments protected Chrisitians from religious violence from Islamic extremists? What you fail to understand is the reason christians face a hard time in Islamic countries is not because of big government but is because of their Islamic religious beliefs which don't tolerate other faiths. http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-to-assad-regime-for-protection-from-jihadis/

Another blow to your big government vs small libertarian government false dichotomy is the Southern treatment of Afro Americans. Historically, local state governments not the Federal government was responsible for Jim Crow laws and other forms of oppression. Interracial Marriage was banned not on the federal level but on the state level. It took the Central government of the United States to end both slavery of blacks during the Civil War and the oppression of segregation in the 1960s.

Using the Syrian and Iraq example, what if both these governments allowed small libertarian government as you and FollowingHim propose, many local Islamic communities would have persecuted christians without fear of central government reprisals. The Indonesian example you cited while bad wasn't because of big government but was because of the religious attitudes of Islam.

Another example of a big central government tolerating a different religion is the Russian Empire. In the 18th century, Catherine the Great launched a policy that enshrined religious tolerance and actively co-opted Muslim authorities.

The Russian empire provided Islam a sheltered but precarious place within its borders. Sporadic efforts at forced conversion to Orthodoxy ended in 1773 with Catherine II's edict of religious tolerance, which officially acknowledged the existence of the Muslim community and allowed the free practice of its essential religious rites. Among these, pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj) was one of the most sacred. But distrust of Islam and fear of Muslim revolt, fed by an almost paranoid apprehension of pan-Islamic solidarity, were deeply embedded in tsarist policies and attitudes toward pious Muslims.

This is an excerpt from a Stanford professor:

"The Russian Empire in the early modern centuries, approximately 1450 to 1800, expanded to stretch from Poland to the Pacific, and from the Arctic to the Black Sea, encompassing a myriad of ethnicities, including Russian, Tatar, Siberian, Ukrainian, German, Estonian, and religions, Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Lutheranism, etc.

Perhaps most remarkable is how successful its rulers were in growing from a backwater principality in the northern forests into a major player in Ottoman and European geopolitics. They did this despite Russia’s tremendous historical lack of resources – farming in such a northern climate was at a subsistence level, and the population was very sparse. They succeeded by pursuing two principal strategies of governance.

First, they defined central state control very minimally: controlling the means of violence – the army, frontier defense – and mobilizing all available resources through taxation and population control, even to the point of enserfing peasants, and providing criminal justice for serious crimes. Otherwise, Russia’s rulers allowed subject peoples to maintain their own languages, religions, culture, elites, laws and institutions, creating an “empire of difference” that constituted its second key to success: By leaving subject communities generally intact, Russia built an empire “on the cheap,” saving expenditures on local government and ensuring social stability as long as subject peoples submitted and paid taxes.

As diverse as it was, the Russian Empire was also remarkable for its ability to impose uniformity when it mattered. At a time when emerging nation-states, such as France and other empires, were struggling with different languages and legal systems across the realm, Russia imposed one criminal law, one bureaucratic apparatus and one judicial culture. Russian law was not as learned as in Europe, but it was practical and pragmatic, and judges adhered to it in procedure and sentencing empirewide."

https://www.rferl.org/a/1070928.html

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...herine-the-great-and-russia’s-muslims/6670460

You need to abandon the false dichotomy between big government vs small libertarian government. You and others on this forum need to take a more pragmatic view of government and not some silly religiously hatred for government.

 

[FollowingHim]

Using the Syrian and Iraq example, what if both these governments allowed small libertarian government as you and FollowingHim propose, many local Islamic communities would have persecuted christians without fear of central government reprisals.

You are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Anarchy would certainly allow Islamic communities to persecute Christians. Libertarianism on the other hand focusses the role of government solely on law & order and defence, abandoning things like business regulation to allow a smaller government that is more purely focussed on these essentials. A true libertarian government would protect the freedom of all people within the country, of all religious views, and thus protect Christians against Muslims wherever this was a problem.

In fact, a true libertarian government would look a lot like the example you yourself have just held up as a success story:

"The Russian Empire ... defined central state control very minimally: controlling the means of violence – the army, frontier defense – and mobilizing all available resources through taxation and population control, even to the point of enserfing peasants, and providing criminal justice for serious crimes. Otherwise, Russia’s rulers allowed subject peoples to maintain their own languages, religions, culture, elites, laws and institutions, creating an “empire of difference” that constituted its second key to success: By leaving subject communities generally intact, Russia built an empire “on the cheap,” saving expenditures on local government and ensuring social stability as long as subject peoples submitted and paid taxes.

 

[sun]

You are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Anarchy would certainly allow Islamic communities to persecute Christians. Libertarianism on the other hand focusses the role of government solely on law & order and defence, abandoning things like business regulation to allow a smaller government that is more purely focussed on these essentials. A true libertarian government would protect the freedom of all people within the country, of all religious views, and thus protect Christians against Muslims wherever this was a problem.

In fact, a true libertarian government would look a lot like the example you yourself have just held up as a success story:

Muslims still would have prosecuted Christians. What about if a central government allowed a local government to maintain their laws and institutions like in the American South? Muslims would have still discriminated against Christians like whites discriminated against blacks. Many private businesses would have discriminated against Chrisitans like in the American South. Libertarians believe in state's rights and private property rights; Radical Muslims would have made similar arguments. State governments in America would have still passed laws banning polygamy; monogamy is the majority christian view and still is.

Another problem is that Christians have different interpretations of the bible. Your interpretation of the bible that homosexuals should be allowed to have rights or consensual sex would conflict with other Christians who disagree with that view. Moreover, what about if a man and woman have sex and create a child and if the woman doesn't want it. Does the woman have a right to an abortion or not? Many on this forum oppose abortion but a government is going to either violate the non aggression principle or not to prevent abortion. Even libertarians are divided on this.

 

[sun]

I agree on the insider trading but imho, the stock market is all about a false balance and is most likely the apparatus behind the idea of Mammon. When Satan takes Jesus up on the high mountain to bribe him, he didn't offer him the world because he was not the owner of it. He offered Christ the kingdoms of the world because that's all he had to offer. Mystery Babylon in Revelation 17 & 18 is not about Rome or the Catholic Church. Nothing in the passage can be construed to prove this theory because Mystery Babylon in its 8 occurrences has always been about Mammon not religion. Mammon is all about the false balance that comes from and is based upon trade. If you notice in the passages below, the whore is a city that rules over kingdoms and nations and has made the "merchants" and kings rich. Also notice how they are made rich and what the merchandise is. No one city can produce all of that merchandise but it can facilitate the speculation of this merchandise through means of a stock market.

If Mystery Babylon / Mammon is all about the stock market, we as believers are to have no part of it or whatever Mystery Babylon is, per Rev. 18:4.
Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth † over the kings of the earth.
Rev. 18:2-4And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev. 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
For in one hour so great riches is come to nought

I find it ironic that you didn't name the city or nation that is being discussed. That sounds like New York City or the United States of America. I believe that the USA will not exist in the next 20 to 55 years.

There is no doubt in my mind that the United States fits the description of Babylon better than any nation, corporation, denomination, government. If we are in the last of the last days, and a different Babylon is yet to surface, then we are not in the last of the last days. This does not seem likely.
I believe all that the Word says is coming, will come in a way we won’t recognize, and is right at the door, though we don’t see it. We need from God eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart that understands.

If it is true that America is Babylon, then it is also true that we will be destroyed in one day. If Dumitru Duduman’s prophecy is truly from the Lord, then it is something to ponder. He says there will be an uprising of many in America against the government. As the government focuses on this domestic insurgency, enemy nations from ships will launch missiles against our nuclear storehouses and cause America to burn and be destroyed in one day.

That would fit Babylon to a T.

However God does not spell everything out to us because if we knew that, then we in our carnality would try to change God’s plan by jumping too soon on actions.

I think the reason we don’t want to even consider that America is Babylon is we don’t realize how bad America really is.

https://timmchyde.com/mystery-babylon-city-country/


http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2...as-nuclear-destruction-is-coming-2451546.html
http://www.prophecyupdate.com/can-america-be-mystery-babylon.html

 

[The Revolting Man]

So what Godly big government has there been?

 

[Joleneakamama]

They're never going to minister the entire law, because they don't believe it.

I maintain that they will, in His time, do just that. "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ."
Just because we don't see this reality presently, does not mean that each day isn't bringing us closer to this blessed time.

If it is true that America is Babylon, then it is also true that we will be destroyed in one day.

Latter day "Mystery Babylon the great" is called a mystery for good cause. Scripture tells us she rules over the kings (plural) of the earth. I believe this disqualifies any one recognized nation as being Mystery Babylon, and points to the money interests of the world, who control from behind the scene ALL nations. The current mess is just them using one nation, who's government has already been subverted, (the usa) to overthrow and restructure other nations, under the IMF.
We still fit the description in Ezekiel of the end time land of Israel that gets invaded in the gog magog battle. He told us through Micah that we would go, even to Babylon, and there be delivered.
I don't care if they do use nukes. The promise that "No weapon formed against you will prosper" was spoken to the children of Israel, and he says many nations are gathered against her, in the end times, but He is for her.
In case you missed it, there have been changes in labels/titles/names. Before the time of Christ some of the Edomites came to be called Jews (see the Jewish encyclopedia entry on Edom Edomite) then Jesus came and called the real Israelites into the new covenant, where no matter which tribe they were from they were united under Him, and called by the new name, that was not given in the prophesies, but that the mouth of The Lord would name.
Either God was and is impotent, and was unable to establish that covenant with the people He said he would establish it with, and Jesus sent his disciples on a fool's errend to be rejected by the lost sheep, but accepted by non Israelite "Gentiles," or God's chosen servant people the Israelites followed Him, and are called Christian today.

Changing a label on something does nothing to change the substance that is under the label. So there are now Jews, who call themselves Jews and are not, and Christian Israelites that don't realize who they are, and are confused about who's who in the world today.

Calling this "Replacement theology" is to claim that changing a label, changes the contents. It also requires denying much prophesy, and obvious history, and fails to aknowlege the heritage of those descended from the Israelites of both houses that did follow Jesus.


What Andrew said recently on the thread about law, commands, or instrution? is spot on, and explains to me why people reject this comprehensive, and scripturally sound view, when they don't have any scripture or prophesy against it. Here it is

"When we can say stuff like "A & B are not really making sense but that doesn't mean they're wrong" and "C & D are making more sense but that doesn't mean they're right", then that's what I'm talking about. Due to confirmation bias, we spend the lion's share of our time trying to fit new facts and arguments into what we already believe, and little or no time rethinking our complete worldview just because somebody on the other side of the aisle said something that doesn't quite fit. Just the way it is."

Some have just already laid a foundation, and accepted as facts, the identity labels that the bulk of Christianity uses, without checking the definitions, or terms for accuracy.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Or it could be that people have looked at the idea and realize that it is completely without merit and directly contradicts scripture which clearly tells the gentiles they are being grafted in to an existing tree that they are not native too while the existing native branches are being pruned off and so it's literally impossible for scripture to be true and for this idea of the lost tribes being the bulk of new Christians converts at the time of Christ to be true.

Literally either the Bible lies and we're not wild branched being grafted in but existing branches getting correctly labeled or this cockamamie idea has to be wrong.

Guess which answer I'm going with.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Jesus sent His disciples to the "Lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL."
Gentile never meant non Israelite, in fact it was prophesied that Ephraim's descendants would become a multitude of goy/nations/gentiles.

Read the interpretation of Ezekiel's vision. The dry bones are "The whole HOUSE OF ISRAEL."

I never said they were existing branches, they were "Wild olives," that had been dispersed hundreds of years previously.

The scriptural support for this is HUGE!
So please show me even one of these claimed contradictions, from scripture.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Jesus sent His disciples to the "Lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL."
Gentile never meant non Israelite, in fact it was prophesied that Ephraim's descendants would become a multitude of goy/nations/gentiles.

Read the interpretation of Ezekiel's vision. The dry bones are "The whole HOUSE OF ISRAEL."

I never said they were existing branches, they were "Wild olives," that had been dispersed hundreds of years previously.

The scriptural support for this is HUGE!
So please show me even one of these claimed contradictions, from scripture.

We've already done this Jolene. The only reason I'm even responding is that I don't want random people browsing through the forums and thinking this is representative of all of us.

Your supposed proof texts are all taken wildly out of context and read with highly speculative flights of fancy.

The fact is that the Jews had to be the Jews at the time of Christ and nothing has happened since then that could change that.

The whole house of Israel will be regathered but it will be tied to the events foretold in Revelation not some frankly unsettling and disturbing historical fiction involving Edom.

 

[Joleneakamama]

We've already done this Jolene. The only reason I'm even responding is that I don't want random people browsing through the forums and thinking this is representative of all of us.

This implies that I am unwilling to hear your position, but you have yet to present any scripture that supports your claims, or refutes my understanding of what the Scriptures say. If I've given you so much wildly out of context stuff to work with, why can't you bring out a single example, and refute it using Scripture?

The fact is that the Jews had to be the Jews at the time of Christ and nothing has happened since then that could change that.

I never even suggested that Christ, His disciples, or any others who converted were not Israelite Jews, I only pointed out that the Jewish Encyclopedia confirms what Jesus told some called Jews, that they were NOT HIS SHEEP.

The whole house of Israel will be regathered but it will be tied to the events foretold in Revelation not some frankly unsettling and disturbing historical fiction involving Edom.

The scriptures I referenced are from the prophets, who speaking for YHWH prophesied a reuniting of both houses of Israel IN THE NEW COVENANT that Jesus Christ is the mediator of. That the gentiles were descendants of the ten tribes is made very clear if you read the prophesies concerning them, and how Paul applied those prophesies to the gentiles.
Do you believe any other people could have fulfilled prophesies that were spoken to, and about, those ten tribes?

Jesus spoke about "Other sheep that are not of this fold" and said that there would be one fold, and one shepherd. This is because the two houses were both called into the new covenant. That "wall of partition" was broken down, back then!

Lastly, I made nothing up, so are you calling the Scriptures, or the Jewish Encyclopedia fiction?

 

[The Revolting Man]

This implies that I am unwilling to hear your position, but you have yet to present any scripture that supports your claims, or refutes my understanding of what the Scriptures say. If I've given you so much wildly out of context stuff to work with, why can't you bring out a single example, and refute it using Scripture?



I never even suggested that Christ, His disciples, or any others who converted were not Israelite Jews, I only pointed out that the Jewish Encyclopedia confirms what Jesus told some called Jews, that they were NOT HIS SHEEP.



The scriptures I referenced are from the prophets, who speaking for YHWH prophesied a reuniting of both houses of Israel IN THE NEW COVENANT that Jesus Christ is the mediator of. That the gentiles were descendants of the ten tribes is made very clear if you read the prophesies concerning them, and how Paul applied those prophesies to the gentiles.
Do you believe any other people could have fulfilled prophesies that were spoken to, and about, those ten tribes?

Jesus spoke about "Other sheep that are not of this fold" and said that there would be one fold, and one shepherd. This is because the two houses were both called into the new covenant. That "wall of partition" was broken down, back then!

Lastly, I made nothing up, so are you calling the Scriptures, or the Jewish Encyclopedia fiction?

What you say just doesn't make sense. It doesn't square with what happened. The Jews have been preserved and blessed beyond all possibility of coincidence for 2,000 years now. It's highly speculative to the point of being a fairy tale to assume that all of the descendants of Jacob converted and only Edomites remained in Judaism. There's no mention of it in the New Testament which means that God certainly wasn't making the claim that those prophecies were fulfilled at that time or in that way.

You have an agenda. You have some verses you've decided have no other possible meaning and you've decided to make this stand. Fine, I'm not rolling in this mud puddle. I'm putting out a caution, wet floor sign and I'm moving on.

 

[Joleneakamama]

What you say just doesn't make sense. It doesn't square with what happened.

Doesn't square with your perception or understanding perhaps, but it makes total sense and does square with history as I see it.

It's highly speculative to the point of being a fairy tale to assume that all of the descendants of Jacob converted and only Edomites remained in Judaism.

Only Israelites were ever called sheep. Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them (look at Amos 3:2) and they follow me." I never claimed that every Israelite converted, in fact I have said repeatedly that we have to do as Jesus said and judge by fruit. The history in the Jewish Encyclopedia about the Edomites being mixed with Israel does however explain the words of Christ denouncing some called Jews, and explains why some back then hated him, and why the modern Jews of today, descended from those people still hate and reject Christ.
Who else would be the wolves in sheep's clothing?
Remember YHWH said He is against Edom, because of their perpetual hatred for the children of Israel, which obviously includes Jesus Christ.

There's no mention of it in the New Testament which means that God certainly wasn't making the claim that those prophecies were fulfilled at that time or in that way.

The new testament is full of references to The ten tribes being restored. You have just been blind to them because of non biblical definitions.
The Jews have changed the meaning of the Hebrew word Goy. They use it in a singular sense now, which is incorrect, and claim it was always used negatively, and has no positive meaning. This is not true. YHWH used it in the promises to Abraham, and Israel, and it cannot mean non Israelite as most Christians claim because it was used of Jacob describing the descendants of Ephraim, when he blessed him.
Paul in Romans (9:24 -25 I think) quoted Hosea, and applied the prophesies that were to and about the ten tribes, to the gentiles. He also made a reference to the gentiles showing the work of the law written in their hearts, (Romans 2:15) which is a mark of the new covenant (see Jer. 31:31) that was to be with both houses (Israel and Judah) 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 is another reference to the gentiles being the ten tribes, and there are several in 1 Peter 1 as well. This is by no means all of the references pointing to the truth of this understanding, but is obviously more then the nothing that you claimed.
John 8:35 shows that the dispersed ten tribes were among the Greeks, and this was known to the people of that time.
Finally the verse often used to show that Israel rejected Jesus, says that "Blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the gentiles (nations) be come in (Romans 11:25 ) then look at v 30 with that reference to the gentiles in times past not obeying God. (This is significant)
There is another connection too, between Romans 11:25 and the descendants of Ephraim. His seed was prophesied to become a multitude of nations, sometimes that is translated "fullness of the gentiles," which I very much believe is yet another connection. Who else would Paul have been talking about?

You have an agenda. You have some verses you've decided have no other possible meaning and you've decided to make this stand. Fine, I'm not rolling in this mud puddle. I'm putting out a caution, wet floor sign and I'm moving on.

What are you really warning anyone about? That I see it differently then you do?
You still have offered no other explanation for these verses, or cited any scriptures that are in conflict with what I believe.

The big problem I have with calling all of "the church" non Israelite gentiles, is that it goes against the prophetic word YHWH spoke through the prophets, and the words Jesus spoke, and basically claims that NONE of the Israelites converted, and followed Jesus.

Do you really believe that?

My hubby found this video we watched last night, called Marching to Zion. It is not politically correct, exposing the anti Christ nature and beliefs of many (non messianic) Jews, but should believers let politics determine what is truth?

I particularly liked the points it made about endless geneologies, and intermarriage. I highly reccomend it!

I actually did find a verse that suggests that God is working with some Jews that are not united with the Christians yet. It is Micah 5:1-3.

Finally, and for the record, I do not claim perfect understanding, and am very willing to consider any input of substance, that gives me a better understanding of scripture, and prophesy.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Joleneakamama , @ZecAustin is correct that we have already had this discussion (Jews / Edomites) in the past in other threads, and there is no value in thrashing it out in detail here. The identity of the Jews is a large deviation in topic for this thread. You are mainly restating points you have already made, and at this point I do not believe anyone is interested in deeply discussing it further. It is a highly contentious issue that causes division unnecessarily, since it is off-topic for this web forum. I feel that you have already provided sufficient information in this and other threads to inform anyone who is interested in looking into it in more detail.

For the benefit of readers, @Joleneakamama's perspective is already outlined in detail in this thread, and if you wish to examine this issue further feel free to contact her directly.

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to ... devote themselves to ... endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion

This particular issue comprises speculation around genealogies, and has little actual practical relevance for how we live our lives today, because in reality we just don't know what the genealogy of everyone around us is, and we still have to preach the Gospel to them in the same manner. I think this is exactly the sort of "vain discussion" that Paul is warning against. Having said that, I have no personal problem with people having this discussion provided it does not distract from the real work of the Gospel, it is an interesting issue, and I remain neutral on the topic myself. But in long experience of many years of discussion here, it has always been an unhelpful distraction on this particular forum, which is why I would encourage those interested in discussing it to contact @Joleneakamama directly instead of debating it here.

 

[Mojo]

The secular libertarian non-aggression axiom, as outlined (for example) by Herbert Spencer: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."
The Christian non-agression axiom, as outlined by Jesus Christ: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

The similarity is no coincidence. The foundations for classical liberalism / libertarianism were laid in many cases by Christians. I thoroughly recommend reading the essay "The Law" by Bastiat, from 1850 - here he defines from a Christian perspective the appropriate use and limits of law. His conclusions would be termed today as "libertarian". This is a very readable essay and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

In my opinion, libertarian thought is essentially a secular expression of the individual freedom professed by Christianity. It is therefore the appropriate philosophy for a secular government to have, that has the greatest compatibility with the Christianity of individuals living under that government.

Sun, the article you linked to sets up an extreme straw man and then destroys that straw man, rather than destroying libertarianism. For instance, it states that libertarianism relies on moral relativism, so cannot say rape is wrong - but rape is the act of force against another person and is by definition forbidden by the non-aggression axiom. So I don't see a need to go through the article in detail debating it, because it's not actually about what most people here will believe. Most people here who may use the word "libertarian" are actually meaning what that article would define as "classical liberal".

Yes, classic small "L" liberals and small "L" libertarians are pretty much one and the same. I remember reading Richard Nixon's letter to his local Republican office offering his candidacy for U.S. Representative. He describes himself as a "liberal" in regards to economics. It applied at the time under the socialist government of FDR.

 

[Mojo]

The struggle you seem to have, Sun, is with confusing libertarians with libertines and anarchy with either oligarchy or totalitarianism. For the record, I am not a member of the Libertarian party here in the U.S. mainly over its "pro-choice" stance and funding (or lack thereof) for the military, but I like most of what they stand for.

A libertine makes no moral judgments of anyone, and follows a strictly hands off approach to any morality and promotes freedom without responsibility. That's not what my fellow Christian libertarians promote.

I believe a truly, classical liberal who values the Constitution and fears God would fight to protect "Life (no abortion), Liberty (secured by a strong defense), and Pursuit of Happiness (let others decide their personal course of action without compulsion)."

Your presentation of slavery misses the point of libertarianism and classic liberalism. Kidnapped humans placed in permanent slavery violates "liberty, and pursuit of happiness". A truly liberal government would find that reprehensible! Now, indentured servitude??? A libertarian government would allow for that if entered into like a contract and with limits only the two parties agreed to that didn't violate Life.

I won't get into history lessons, but many economists and historians believe that the southern economy would have collapsed in on itself eventually, and was operating on a flawed system that relied too heavily on a slave dependent agrarian system where huge numbers of its population (slaves) were not free market consumers, and was propped up and promoted by...government. It's very core violated liberal principles (For some, That's up for debate, and is just a side point)

Economics promoted by many such as Smith and Ricardo (a Jew) and other liberal economists would say that such a system as Jim Crow would eventually fall flat on its face unless propped up by....a strong government. Businesses that puposefully limit their economic interactions (Jim Crow) with a market will eventually fail if other "liberal" businesses open themselves up to interaction with the widest base possible. Classic liberals are mostly free traders for this very reason!

I truly believe that labels and a need to belong to a group have caused many people to abandon all sense of rationality when it comes to voting and politics. I am a closet social "liberal" amongst my church brethren not because I am a libertine, but because I believe modern "social conservatism" attempts to carve out a one size fits all mentality that seeks to not only legislate morality, but choose my morality for me (anti polygyny)!