This whole article is an attempt at plausibility, using fiction as its illusory base.
The major cause of war over centuries is RELIGION, and the concept of GOD is just wishful fantasy.
It leads to the age old vitriolic cry of: "My god's better than your god!"
Using the bible as evidence just compounds this delusion.
The bible is a massive work of fiction, albeit a best seller, but to place one's entire justification for argument and moral living on the writings of fallible beings is crazy.
Just as crazy as one deluded religion fighting another for possession of land, based on flawed "truths".
In life, people are answerable only to themselves for their behaviour, not to some imaginary being.

"In life, people are answerable only to themselves for their behaviour, not to some imaginary being"

One day one of us will be proven right. Pray it's you.

No, Ponder. I disagree. Zionism emerged in the 19th Century, the era of nationalist movements. Zionism was more concerned with forming a Jewish identity and using that identity to create a nationalist movement as opposed to a religious movement. In much the same way that Italian nationalists in the mid-19th Century sought to create an Italian identity rather than a Catholic one. Arab and Palestinian nationalism in the Middle-East in the 20th Century were not primarily religious - although that has changed with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Nonetheless, Palestinians who are Christians or non-religious are also historically opposed to Israel's existence. Nationalism in the Middle-East is the primary problem - more so than religion. Religious differences may make the problems in the Middle-East worse but they are secondary.

As long you have Israel wanting to maintain its existence as Jewish state and as long as Arab states persecute non-Arabs (and refuse to become democratic) you will have violence.

Fascinating. No doubt our resident theologians and Zionist sympathisers will have a ball with this one.

However, what does it really matter whether the current Zionist occupation of Palestine is prophesied in the Bible or not? Even if it were, that is in itself no moral justification for the expropriation of the Palestinians - unless, of course, you're a Christian or a Jew.

And there's the rub.

Reply to 'ponder' - well put and very true!. That well known random collection of garbled history and hebrew myths collectively known as 'The Bible' is by and large the main cause of most of the misery in the world today - misery that for the most part is totally unnecessary. Zionism is simply nonsense heaped on nonsense, and the on-going brutality meeted out to the rightful occupiers of Palestine - ie the Palestinian people - is a shameful disgrace to all the sects and governments (including the Australian government) that support this pernicious travesty of human rights. Zionism is the curse of the modern day world, and the right-wing christian factional fanaticism that drives zionism and provides financial succour to the bastard parasite state of Israel is equally (if not more) to blame. Christ is not coming back. Get used to it. We are on our own.

So funny that so many people have to spend so much time trying to discredit something they claim not to believe in. There were plenty of people prior to 1948 denying that Israel would ever become a nation again. It must be horrible for those deniers to see Scripture again fulfilled.

Dear runner
Have you ever heard of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'? Or perhaps you simply dont have the intelligence to grasp any concept outside the child-frightening medieval rubbish fed into your head from birth? Use your brain just this once - I suspect that it will be a new experience for you.

It could be said that israel and Bushes' America both suffer from the long wornout Promised Land Doctrine in which each believes that they have a right to destroy the unbelievers.

However using Logical Reasoning, the Old Testament if true, seems more like a gradual process of ethical discovery. As if our so-called God our Father is learning too, thus we have the Ten Commandments nullifying the Promised Land murders, and a Great Ethical Awakening in the New Testament with the young Jesus and His Sermon on the Mount which tells us to make peace with our enemies as we would with our brothers.

Therfore we have the two schools of thought as Christians become more materialist, hardheaded politics really taking over with the intervention of the Roman Emperor Constantine who gave Pagan blessings to the new Roman Catholic Church, but was not told that Christ Jesus had never given allowance to take over another's territory.

So well after Constantine's death the more hardheaded Christians got together and drew up the - Donation of Constantine - which unlawfully gave allowance to get on with the unGodly job of not loving our neighbours and taking over their properties forthwith.

And so it goes on....?

GYM FISH

The prophecies relating to Jesus first coming were extremely accurate. Isaiah and others clearly spoke 600 years or more prior to His arrival. You may choose along with others to mock and back the suicide bombers but your discernment of prophecy and ignorance of history will not prevent the God of Israel fulfilling His purposes.

Maybe religion practise started as a reaction to anti-social behaviour?

But funny how things can turn out.

Zionists fencing in/out non-jews. Christian fundamentalists promoting end times. Islamist extremists waging bloody jihad.

Russians spent years opposed to capitalism, only to embrace its worst features.

Howard the small govt champ. pushes for power thru tied grants etc.

The land of the free suppressing free speech for its own etc etc

Seems we get what we oppose.

Passed time to forget this silliness.

Babu has managed to miss the key point, and so miss the bus altogether. He rightly dismisses supposed biblical arguments (tribal tales) for the bases of Zionism, and thus for the founding of Israel, but then proceeds to accept that israel has a right to exist up to the 1967 borders (which in themselves violate longstanding UN resolutions). That is wackiness at its worst. There is no valid argument for the existence of Israel at all - as George Marshall was trying to tell Truman in 1946-48 (and Marshall knew what the consequences would be, including Islamic radicalisation, but Truman had old Zionist buddies).
In essence, whether modern Israel was or wasn't a biblical prophecy is utterly irrelevant. Why be drawn into such nonsense?

Talk about religion messing up international relations. Probably the most troublesome one for philosophers has been the Promised Land doctrinaire which has not only caused millions to be slaughtered by Christians and their lands stolen in the name of a Roman pagan ruler, Constantine, but has more recently caused the Jews in the name of Jehovah and backed by America to have incompetently or even insanely allowed the Promised Land mania to upset the balance of power in the Middle East to the extent it could see the whole Middle East pretty well wiped out in a nuclear fiesto.

Finally, it is well to remind our superior super modern corporate cultists, that it is the so-called left-wing looneys who hold the avant-guarde commonsense formula which will save this world from destruction either by nuclear war or global warming

WOW.... :) CJ... I heard your call mate... and .."here I am"

so far

MOST MEANINGFUL TRUE TRUTHFUL COMMENT award goes to "MissLizzy" for clearly demonstrating the utter follow of Ponders argument. Well done!

MOST RIDICULOUS COMMENT OF THE DAY.. award goes to Gymfish and Ponder (for agreeing on the same things)
a) "Religion" causes all wars.
b) "Imaginary Gods"

Guys.. the most you can say is 'alleged' or.. 'I believe' but you cannot say with absolute certainty that God ..is not. (philosophically such a claim is untenable.)

I think your thought patterns are experiencing 'mental pediculosis' :)

ZIONISM/ PROPHECY... BIBLE...

COVENANT relationship. If one examines the terms of the covenant in Deuteromony, it becomes clear as follows:
a) Obedience = 'right to dwell in the land'
b) Disobedience = Exile, punishment.

IF.... "that" covenant has not been replaced by the NEW covenant in Christ (as per Jeremiah 31:30-36) then..the OLD covenant applies to this day.

PROBLEM #1 Most Jews are not 'obedient/religious/pious/theistic'
So..it might be argued that they have no divine right to the land on this basis. (see above b)Disobedience)

PROBLEM #2 Even though that covenant has been superceded by the New in Christ, there still "appears" to be a strong argument for God gathering in the Jews to the land again. This cannot be argued with great certainty in terms of the actual nature of events, so it is rather an open question as to 'how' and in what form.

CONCLUSION. I don't believe it can be argued that there is 'no' prophetic/Biblical basis for the current existence of Israel.

Israel is not perfect and it does well to survive in its current location. It is a beacon of knowledge and progress in an incredibly divided and backward area. The Shiite and Sunni struggle to be the first to reach total anarchy while Hezbollah and Fatah try and create true hell for each other.

The story of Jesus has more to do with the personification of sun worship, astrological symbols and ancient Egypt than most people will admit.

How many other preceding "Gods" or "demi-Gods" were born on December 25th and/or born of a virgin and/or rose from the dead after 3 days and/or performed miracles and/or used the symbols of bread and wine and/or whose coming was foretold by prophets and/or were crucified (or at least hung in trees) and/or converted water into wine and/or raised the dead and so on?

Try Attis, Alcides, Quirinus, Prometheus, Appolonius, Horus, Tammuz, Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, Zarathustra and Heracles just for a start.

Jesus himself said the end of his age/aeon/world (Pisces) would be marked by the "man with a pitcher of water" (Aquarius).

Moses was peeved by those who still worshipped a golden calf (Age of Taurus) when it was the Age of Aries and "the faithful" were correctly blowing rams horns.

Even the story of Moses in the bullrushes happened to somebody else beforehand. Something uncannily similar to the Ten Commandments and the 23rd Psalm had been recorded in Eqypt long beforehand.

The analogies go on and on and it has all been told and re-told before, long before Jesus appeared on the scene.

Therefore, how can any single group of individuals claim to know "the truth" and how can they claim knowledge of any sort of divine prophecy at the expense of everybody else?

If you tried hard enough, you could probably get as much meaningful prophecy out of the next Harry Potter book or by reading the entrails of a slaughtered goat.

Arrrgh.. "folly"

PONDER, your 'view' gave us Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, the Cultural revolution (30,000,000 victims), Stalins Purges (21,000,000 victims)
and so it goes, all withOUT "religion"...

Puh-lease RE-think the idea that 'all wars are caused by religion'.

Boazy, how many times must it be pointed out to you that Pol Pot, Mao etc did not (mis)govern in the name of religion but in pursuit of a political ideology.
On the other hand the Inquisition burned its victims in the name of Catholic orthodoxy.
Religion might not be the cause of all wars, as greed and anger are better candidates. but keep in mind that religion is adept at sublimating greed and anger into freedom and democracy.

Final answer to 'runner'
I have long realised the futility of trying to establish rational debate with a religious nut - however I cannot let your last epistle pass without comment.
So now an objection to Zionism, and the illegitimate state of Israel, necessarily implies support of that familiar obscenity - the suicide bombers. I have every respect for those willing to suffer and die for a just cause - but no respect whatsoever for the indiscriminate murder of innocent people in the name of 'Allah' - a figure as fictional as the 'God of Israel' and, it seems, equally indifferent to suffering. As to the bombers themselves, anyone sufficiently mentally unbalanced to believe that a selection of nubile virgins await them after they (together with a random selection of the 'infidel') have been blown to bits are probably better off dead - if not for themselves then for civilisation in general. It is almost as ridiculous as the notion of trans-substantiation, not to mention the 'rapture', and the 'second coming'. Come down from the cross,'runner', and for once actually consider the fundamental tenets of your 'faith' Take off the crown of thorns. You look ridiculous.

Rather than argue that religion is responsible for wars, it should be considered that wars happen IN SPITE OF religion and than no wars were ever STOPPED because of religion.

Gym Fish

Not all the suicide bombers inside Israel were Islamic fundamentalists and at least one was a woman.

Answer to keith
Perhaps they were genuine, albeit hopelessly misguided, idealists. I don't doubt that such people exist - I only doubt their sanity. In any case religious crap is still religious crap regardless of fundamental doctrinal differences and the suicide bombers you describe were, I suggest, religious fanatics akin to the more 'conventional' muslim jihadists. Also, the term 'suicide bomber' is asexual. I have little doubt that young women are just as easily swayed by religious rhetoric as are young men, and just as easily seduced by the many fatuous promises offered by self styled religious spokespeoples who claim a direct telephone connection to god.

No...Gym Fish

There was only one woman bomber and her motivation was clear cut. She was an Ambulance Worker in the West Bank who simply was motivated by the experiences she'd had at the hands of the Israel occupation forces. I doubt she was lesbian.

I do agree with many of your views on religious fanaticism

So many errors in one peace. Did Babu do any research before writing this?

For starters the claim "Zionism (the belief that Jews have a biblical right to all of Palestine)" is totally untrue. Jews have been returning to Israel for many centuries most from within the Caliphate, some never left. The European Zionist idea was to provide a place for Jews to go to, no mention of God (Herzl was not even a believer) and certainly no belief in a God given right.

And then it gets worse - "Most of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of Europeans who had converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews)." Three errors in one breath taking sentemce.

DNA evidence shows a commonality amongst the majority of Jews in Y chromosomes which means a common heritage on the male side.

The Khazars were a people (perhaps Turkish) who adopted Judaism. They then appeared to have switched to Islam. DNA does not support the speculation that the European Jews were at all descended from the Khazars.

The third correction, half of the Jews in Israel today are not from Europe at all, they are refugees from other Arab countries. One can and should be sorry for the Palestinians, but equally so for the Jews from Morocco, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt Yemen etc etc etc. They also lost their houses, many lost their lives, and they were at least as numerous as the Palestinians. Compensation, compassion and consideration has to go both ways.

The serious problem in Palestine is compounded by the failure of Jordan and Egypt to accept back people who left for the employment gained in the Jewish settlements, and the efforts of Islamists to penetrate the group with their miserable philosophies. They closed the cinemas and cafes in Gaza, that was not the doing of Israsel.

This ridiculous article is based on this false premise,which either indicates that Babu is a brainwashed fool,or that he has done no research(I am inclined to believe both)
"The fact is that almost none of the Jews in modern Israel are descendants of the original Jews of Palestine thousands of years ago. Most of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of Europeans who had converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews)."(Babu)
Now the truth.
Ashkenazi Jews are described as those who fled the Middle East a long time ago and originally settled in the Rhineland but during the Middle Ages,moved to other parts of Europe
The Jews,who settled in Spain are called Sephardic.Both have geographical connotations.
There is absolutely no historical basis to the claim that non Jews converted.
For a start who would want to,given that most countries were in fact demanding Jews convert to Christianity on pain of death or expulsion.
Also Judaism doesn't seek converts and the process is extremely difficult.
The Khazars were a Turcic race living in the Caucassian region,whose ruler decided in the 8th century ,he wanted to become Jewish for political reasons and dragged some of his followers with him.
Since then a whole ridiculous myth has developed about these lost tribes etcetc.
There is absolutely no link whatsoever,between the Ashkenazis and the Khazars and it is doubtful whether there any Khazar descendents living in Israel.
They probably wouldnt be accepted as bona fide Jews in any case.
The theory that Ashkenazi Jews might be descended from Khazars was adopted by anti Zionists who saw it as a means of invalidating the claims of Jews,but has absolutely no historical basis(Bernard Lewis).
Its the sort of rubbish that only crackpots like David Irvine and our friend Babu would dare propound.
No more articles please,Babu,this one is just stupid!

wobbles,

Thanks for your post - the article and comments were a yawn until you came along.

Too bad BOAZ-David has already given away prizes for stupidity because yours definately must topple First place.

For example:

>>The story of Jesus has more to do with the personification of sun worship, astrological symbols and ancient Egypt than most people will admit.<<

and
>>Jesus himself said the end of his age/aeon/world (Pisces) would be marked by the "man with a pitcher of water" (Aquarius).<<

Where do you find these jokes? LOL

But to answer your question:

>>Therefore, how can any single group of individuals claim to know "the truth" and how can they claim knowledge of any sort of divine prophecy at the expense of everybody else?<<

The answer is Jesus and The Bible. All the prophesies concerning Him came true. Therefore the Bible containing these prophesies is a trustworthy historical book. So Israel's "Land" claim according to the Bible are still legit; God does not recant on His promises.

BTW this Jesus is the only God-man that prophesy his own death and the way He was going to raise “Himself” from the dead on the third day. All others are dead.

He is still alive today, and He is coming back again to judge the world; proving once more that He is God.

When he ascended to heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit to live with His followers (those who accept Him as Lord and Saviour).

It is this Holy Spirit living in us that is the proof you are looking for. You wont find Him in the comic books and fables.

God has always fulfilled His promises to His people "Israel". I don't see why He won't do it again despite Zionism, Arab League, Palestinians, the UN, and Babu’s own interpretations of the Bible...

Coach,
All the things I said are freely accessible and are in the public domain.

Check them out if you are game.

They are history, unlike Jesus.

Wobbles,

All the historical proof about Jesus is in The Bible if you care to read it.

Start with The Gospel of Luke and let me know which part doesn't agree with your fairy tales.

The Bible is NOT a historical document and contains no eyewitness accounts.

Even the Gospels, who were written by unknown authors years after the events, contradict each other about many details.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

If you accept it all to be true, then you must also accept that donkeys can talk,that unicorns exist and that the world is flat, with an angel guarding each of its four corners.

The things I mentioned are examples of how the same stories are recycled and borrowed from other cultures.

Here are some interesting similarities. You may dispute some of them but you can't ignore them all.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

The basis for most of these was the study of the movement of stars in the sky, which was essential for everyday life in the ancient world. These were personified into what is called the zodiac and most monotheistic religions were spawned from this as well as the ancient Roman and Greek gods.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen13.html
(For the record, I don't believe in astrology)

Whether you believe in the Bible or think it is a work of fiction, the article we are supposed to be discussing makes some very good points regarding the falsity of Zionism's claim of a Biblical right to the land of Israel. Revelation indeed is a symbolic book, and much of it cannot be taken literally. The verse quoted quite clearly states that it is presented to John in 'signs', or symbols.

I can't claim to know anything about the dna of Israelites living in the land at the moment, but it doesn't change the fact that the 'Israel of God' mentioned in the Bible, when taken in context, is a spiritual nation, not a physical one. It can be made up of people of any race. Therefore it doesn't matter whether they are real Israelites or not, they are not Biblically the chosen nation of God.

RE: Lack of eyewitness accounts. The Book of John was written by the apostle of the same name, who was personally selected by Jesus. Can't get more eyewitness than that.

RE: Scriptural contradiction. [sigh] If you want to discuss those with me and you can email me from this board (I haven't posted here before so I don't know if you can), feel free to. I believe I can satisfactorily refute any supposed Biblical contradiction you want to throw my way.

RE: The Bible is a fictional account. The Dead Sea scrolls containing many prophecies concerning Jesus have been authenticated at hundreds of years before his birth. The Jewish historian Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus and confirms his existence.

I don't think the article was written to stir up angry debate which will undoubtedly end up in cyber-insults and name-calling, but it does quite simply prove that Zionism has no Biblical basis.

Jek

Hi Jek, welcome to OLO.. your first time eh :)

for contact with posters, its probably good to set up a special yahoo email for that purpose where you can give the address here without using your usual one.
I don't think anyone can contact you via here, unless Graham Young has facilitated it with a 'allow email contact' box in the profile section. I'm not aware of one.
I'm interested in your views also newlifeinhim777@yahoo.com.au kind of tells you where I come from spiritually :)
I do see a place for Israel, but cannot detail it very well.
The return of the people to the land seems to fit some prophecies quite well, but overall I'm a 'pan' millenialist if you get my meaning.
Hope to see more of you posting here. Don't be surprised if you experience some brickbats and some boquets also. Patience is needed.
blessings

Thanks for popping in, SharazJek.

You will find on this Forum plenty of people prepared to discuss these - and many other - issues.

But it probably isn't a good idea to be quite so dogmatic and rigid, first time out.

>>RE: Lack of eyewitness accounts. The Book of John was written by the apostle of the same name, who was personally selected by Jesus. Can't get more eyewitness than that<<

Now, I am not a biblical scholar, but others are.

Here's one now.

"The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status."

That was Robert Kysar, Emeritus Bandy Professor of Preaching and New Testament, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, in "The Anchor Bible Dictionary" pp 919-920

>>I believe I can satisfactorily refute any supposed Biblical contradiction you want to throw my way<<

I'm absolutely certain that you can. However, don't expect us to ascribe any particular credibility to your views. Especially when you say things like:

>>The Jewish historian Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus and confirms his existence<<

Nope. Josephus was born in 37 AD, a couple of years after the date when Jesus is generally believed to have been crucified. Hardly "contemporary".

Believe me, this is not intended to put you down or discourage you from participating in the forum. The more the merrier.

But equally, don't expect to get away with carelessly-phrased assertions.

Wobbles,

>>The Bible is NOT a historical document and contains no eyewitness accounts.<<

I must disagree with that. Although the Bible is not to be read as a historical book per se - in the secular sense; Christianity is a "spiritual revelation" well and truly embedded in thousand of years of history.

Biblical history is told and recorded by God's people, expressing their worldview and their historical journey. Biblical events cannot be divorced from the historical culture - as history is mentioned as a matter of fact – the writers empirical view of the world as it happened around them.

History and Archaeology could only prove the Biblical historicity – time and time again.

I don’t see where you are going with the ‘no eyewitness accounts’ = no Chritianity. No one can reject the historicity of Jesus as reported – internally (Gospels) or externally (secular) –

No matter how many would like to disagree, His historical birth has split time to BC/AD. Doesn’t this fact alone tell you something?

Pericles,

>>“Nope. Josephus was born in 37 AD, a couple of years after the date when Jesus is generally believed to have been crucified. Hardly "contemporary".<<

Are you saying that a historian born in say the 1970s cannot encapsulate WWII' history as accurately if not better than someone who was there?

Since when is history solely linked with eyewitness? Can you deny "it" happened because “you” weren’t there? Can’t a true story be told with integrity “after the facts”?

“Contemporary” does not need to mean 'in-real-time' by a residing eyewitness. Josephus (Like Dr Luke’s Gospel account) had hundreds of remaining contemporary eyewitnesses that he could interview and cross reference to satisfy any judge or court.

I said “remaining” eyewitnesses because ironically most were tortured and executed for propagating and/or believing what they had witnessed.