"The Jews will Return to Israel"
"We will have a great war in the mid-East"

i have heard both of these used in the Christian description of "Prophecy", predictions relating to the "End-Times" and the alleged return of Jesus Christ.

a recent example, the email from Pastor X
http://www.geocities.com/abdu1maria/Christian_EmaiL_H_.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/abdu1maria/Christian_EmaiL__.jpg

... which says, in summary, "Israel Good. Iran bad" and encourages the flock to look at war with Iran as a Good Thing, because it is a sign that Christian Prophecy is Coming True !

i'm curious WHEN this version of the Bible became accepted by the Christian community. Specifically, i'm curious if it was re-written or otherwise adapted to justify stealing oil from Muslim countries in the mid-East.

was it a case of, "hey, we can use this" (referring to a centuries-old version of Christian prophecy that preceded oil wars), or, more like, "you know, it would be really convenient if Christian Prophecy could be re-written to justify planting troops where the oil is."

or, a third version, where existing Christian policy was tweaked - slightly modified - to justify America's support of Israel & oil wars.

There are a number of prophecies based in the old Testament, most of which became true according to Christian philophy, but the vast majority of the new age Apocalypse prophesies are based on one book in the bible, Revelation, which was a dream/vision written down by John.

It's full of graphic images and allegories that are up for a WIDE variety of interpretations and does not denote time/place/events very well without making grand leaps of judgement. It's an interesting read, and to me always sounds like a mushroom trip gone bad in his head.

It's been used for centuries to create panic and peity in various churches with the 'impending doom' around the corner, but more recently has reached some massive acceptance in the religious right due to the "Left Behind" series which starts off in Revelation with the 'ascention' of the chosen people to heaven, leaving all of us sinner behind to fight in the battle of earth with good facing off against the seven headed beast that crawls from the depths of hell.

The main issue is that these people now see this as something that is going to happen within this generation (watch Jesus Camp if you get a chance, to see how they're indocrinating kids from toddlers to believe that they willl be fighting the almighty battle before thier lives are over) and that all of their decisions should be based upon the end of mankind on earth within the next couple of decades.

And remember, this is all based on a guys dream from the 1st century.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
I've got some massive issues with the prophecies that have been 'extracted'.

There are a number of prophecies based in the old Testament, most of which became true according to Christian philophy, but the vast majority of the new age Apocalypse prophesies are based on one book in the bible, Revelation, which was a dream/vision written down by John.

It's full of graphic images and allegories that are up for a WIDE variety of interpretations and does not denote time/place/events very well without making grand leaps of judgement. It's an interesting read, and to me always sounds like a mushroom trip gone bad in his head.

It's been used for centuries to create panic and peity in various churches with the 'impending doom' around the corner, but more recently has reached some massive acceptance in the religious right due to the "Left Behind" series which starts off in Revelation with the 'ascention' of the chosen people to heaven, leaving all of us sinner behind to fight in the battle of earth with good facing off against the seven headed beast that crawls from the depths of hell.

The main issue is that these people now see this as something that is going to happen within this generation (watch Jesus Camp if you get a chance, to see how they're indocrinating kids from toddlers to believe that they willl be fighting the almighty battle before thier lives are over) and that all of their decisions should be based upon the end of mankind on earth within the next couple of decades.

And remember, this is all based on a guys dream from the 1st century.

Aren't you happy you asked?

---

yes, actually. i thought i'd try here before venturing an email to Pastor X. i'd rather hear it from you guys than on a Christian newsgroup.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abdul_Maria:

i'm curious how the Prophecy has been adapted to suit the World Domination policies of the overlapping military, Christian, etc. elements of US culture. More details would be welcome.

---

I would actually say 'distorted' first.

To be honest though, I've never run into a 'protocols of Zion' type document (relax kids we know that's a lie), that had any one church group trying to warp it to fit World Domination policies.

I think, as my religious studies minor roommate would be proud to hear me say, that it's actually more about how the church and religion are trying to fit into the modern world and become relevant. Some of the evangelicals see patterns similar to ones in revelations and immediately start to wrap the rest of the story around it, and to start prophecizing that the rest is about to happen.

When you 'world changing' events like 9/11 happening it gets people looking for answers and these guys have found it in a 2000 year old hallucination, and are now, due to the comfort given to them by books like "Left Behind", they 'know' that the kingdom of heaven is opening it's gates for them, and they're trying to encourage it to happen.

Along a completely different, but completely intertwined line, throughout history governments, despots, kings, and leaders have done a wonderful job of whipping up religious furvours in the attempt to get people onside to attack their 'enemies'. Wars are almost never IMO about anything other than resources, but using religion is a great way to 'sell' it to the peons that are going to be dying on the front lines (nationality and ideology are the other most common).

What I'm suggesting here is that we have a number of phenomenon that occured that sparked peoples attention to the apocalyptic view points, and a number of people both Church and state who saw this attention as a viable tool to meet their ends and encouraged a more vigorous discussion on it.

quote:

---

i'm curious how the Prophecy has been adapted to suit the World Domination policies of the overlapping military, Christian, etc. elements of US culture.

---

What time frame are you looking at? Slightly past WWII when the chosen were first returned to the land, or are you going for more recent? Theres quite a bit of history behind it if you dig, mind you tis almost purely after the fact speculation.

quote:

---

It's an interesting read, and to me always sounds like a mushroom trip gone bad in his head.

---

added:

quote:

---

I think, as my religious studies minor roommate would be proud to hear me say, that it's actually more about how the church and religion are trying to fit into the modern world and become relevant.

---

Interesting take on it, I'll have to consider that a bit further... Though I think I use an variation of the same thing. Religion most often offers hope to those that have none... In darker times it would be the only thing that kept peasants working. In parts of todays world, this need for hope isn't as prevailant... To remain relevant and attract new 'sheep', you'll also have to provide the fear required to send people searching for hope.

Although, tis also rooted in our culture and not just religion. Every last hero that the Western world collectively looked to always had a nemisis... In an absence of a nemisis, we'll tend to create one for ourselves (With the mysterious 'terrorist' peeking out behind every corner, we've done a pretty good job in creating one ofr ourselves so far).

quote:

---

What I'm suggesting here is that we have a number of phenomenon that occured that sparked peoples attention to the apocalyptic view points

---

[ 23 February 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
What time frame are you looking at? Slightly past WWII when the chosen were first returned to the land, or are you going for more recent? Theres quite a bit of history behind it if you dig, mind you tis almost purely after the fact speculation.

---

Why were Palestinian lands choosen for Zionist occupation?

quote:

---

Why were Palestinian lands choosen for Zionist occupation?

- Were other lands considered?
- Who made the call?
- When was it made?

---

All good, and relevant questions, and I think you're going to get multiple answers to most of these. Some people will say Palestine was chosen due to the fact that it's ethnically the homeland of Jewich people (despite the large percentage of European Jews being caucasian with no ethnic link to the 'homeland'), some might say that it was chosen for biblical reasons. And both sides probably agreed, and for different reasons.

Weere other lands considered? Yes. Seriously? not sure.

Who made the call? and When? Both of these I think you can put in the 'we don't know and are never likely to know' category. Officially however it was the UN and in 1948. But there had been a movement and discussions of this for quite sometime, and this would never had happened without the British, French and American approval.

quote:

---

Weere other lands considered? Yes.

---

quote:

---

Before 1917 some Zionist leaders took seriously proposals for Jewish homelands in places other than Palestine. Herzl's Der Judenstaat argued for a Jewish state in either Palestine, "our ever-memorable historic home", or Argentina, "one of the most fertile countries in the world". In 1903 British cabinet ministers suggested the British Uganda Program, land for a Jewish state in "Uganda" (in today's Kenya). Herzl initially rejected the idea, preferring Palestine, but after the April 1903 Kishinev pogrom Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the Sixth Zionist Congress to investigate the offer as a temporary measure for Russian Jews in danger. Notwithstanding its emergency and temporary nature, the proposal still proved very divisive, and widespread opposition to the plan was fueled by a walkout led by the Russian Jewish delegation to the Congress. Nevertheless, a majority voted to establish a committee for the investigation of the possibility, and it was not dismissed until the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905.

In response to this, the Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO) led by Israel Zangwill split off from the main Zionist movement. The territorialists attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible, but went into decline after 1917 and the ITO was dissolved in 1925. From that time Palestine was the sole focus of Zionist aspirations. In 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the Russian Far East but the effort failed to meet expectations and as of 2002 Jews constitute only about 1.2% of its population.

---

May sound crazy, but if they'd have picked Argentina I would suggest that things would be a LOT different these days.