A
AlNg
Guest
Yeah those poor natives. Definitely should have let them continue their human sacrifices instead of civilizing them.
I don’t know. Perhaps you can tell us.And this is somehow related to the debate in what way exactly?
Yeah those poor natives. Definitely should have let them continue their human sacrifices instead of civilizing them.
I don’t know. Perhaps you can tell us.And this is somehow related to the debate in what way exactly?
I believe this would be helpful.You mean relocating the Papacy to Jerusalem?
Did Christ live in Rome? It would make more sense for our pope to follow in the footsteps of Christ.That seems heretical.
how is this biblical? God promised Jerusalem to the jews.I honestly think a Christian state would be better.
There are plenty of “ethnostates”. That’s the basis for nearly every European state. Poland is full of Poles. Germany is full of Germans. France is full of French. Italy is full of Italians.One has to wonder why only one particular ethnostate is tolerated though.
so God broke his promise to Abram’s descendants? i don’t see where God limits this ownership only till the covenant changes.Because the Jewish faith is no longer relevant. Jesus fulfilled the covenant and made a new one. The Catholic Church is the new Jerusalem, the physical city is just a city. What entity rules it doesn’t matter.
Genesis 15
18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[e] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.”
No, He didn’t break any promises. He fulfilled it by sending the promised Messiah.so God broke his promise to Abram’s descendants?