But who says **your **interpretation of those statements is precisely what they mean? And since doctrinal understanding develops (something the church has taught for centuries) who are you to say that your personal understanding of these statements is correct?
C’mon, now, Church Militant, you know as well as I that the Church does not leave much room for interpretation in Her pronouncements (prior to V2 anyways
). The following statement was CONDEMNED:READ IT AND WEEP!!! ITS IN EZEKIEL CHAPTER 36Very well said!
My problem with the whole idea that there is a Biblical reason to be Zionist is that the whole thing is based upon “rapture theology” which is drastically unBibical anyway.
As Smitty said I too would like to see the passages that Evangelicals/Fundamentalists offer to support their political agenda.
Has anyone considered that the politcal climate today of neo-Cons who mix their strange theologies with politics in some ways parallel the temporal power conflicts that the Catholic Church endured many centuries ago and resulted in the Crusades.(As well as many other problems and abuses.) :ehh:
From what I’ve heard, the Babylonian captivity ended some 2500+ years ago. Don’t you think that this emancipation might be what Ezekiel was referring to?
You need to read all of Ezekiel 36
If that’s your reading of Ezekial, it looks like God was wrong from 70 AD all the way until 1948. And even now, it’s certainly not enjoyed with “whole hearted joy”…so I think you might want to rethink your interpretation.
By the way do you have a problem with Syria occupying Lebanon? I never hear the media complain about it.Very well said!
My problem with the whole idea that there is a Biblical reason to be Zionist is that the whole thing is based upon “rapture theology” which is drastically unBibical anyway.
As Smitty said I too would like to see the passages that Evangelicals/Fundamentalists offer to support their political agenda.
Has anyone considered that the politcal climate today of neo-Cons who mix their strange theologies with politics in some ways parallel the temporal power conflicts that the Catholic Church endured many centuries ago and resulted in the Crusades.(As well as many other problems and abuses.) :ehh:
What has this to do with anything?
Of course! Lebanon used to be a Christian nation.
Of the 20 million Iraqi citizens, some one million are Christians. Of these, 80% are Catholics belonging to either the Chaldean or Latin Rites. Granted, that’s only Iraq, but I’m guessing that similar statistics are likely for the majority of the Holy Land. Feel free to correct me.
I guess in addition to this, I should ask: “Why has the Church traditionally had an unfavorable view of Zionism? Has this changed? If so, WHY?!”Why have Evangelicals allied themselves so closely with the Zionist Jews? I don’t understand this. Christians in the Holy Land have more favorable views of Muslims than they do Jews, so why do these American Christians feel so drawn to them?
Guess you have to call a decent span of Catholic history bad as the popes were still trying to take back the Holy Land in the time of Luther.
He did an outstanding job of predicting the current state of affairs of Islam. Even from England.
The Crusades were glorious! Belloc also wrote a book simply called “Jews.” Have you read it? I’m thinking about getting it.Now the crusades are bad again?
I recommend a good dose of Hillare Belloc to square you up on all things Muslim.
Iraq, remember, is in a different state with the Church. The Assyrian Church of the East is not Eastern Orthodox, but, rather, Oriental Orthodox, they only accept the first 4 Ecumenical Councils, and were at odds with both the Latins and the Byzantines. The Chaldean Catholics reentered Communion with Rome later.
Uh oh…no!
.
It was written by Hilaire Belloc. It is not supportive of the SSPX in any way considering that they did not exist at that time! I’m looking forward to reading it to see whether or not the Church has changed in regard to the Jewish question.