http://www.sizers.org/articles/ebook_sizer.pdf posted:
Lord Shaftesbury and Restorationism Zionism would probably have remained simply a religious ideal were it not for the intervention of a handful of influential aristocratic British politicians who came to share the theological convictions of Darby and his colleagues and translated them into political reality. One in particular, Lord Shaftesbury (1801-1885) became convinced that the restoration of the Jews to Palestine was not only predicted in the Bible, but also coincided with the strategic interests of British foreign policy. Others who shared this perspective, in varying degrees and for different reasons, included Lord Palmerston, David Lloyd George and Lord Balfour. Ironically, this conviction was precipitated by the actions of an atheist, Napoleon, in the spring of 1799.
During the Syrian campaign of Napoleon’s Oriental expedition, in which he had sought to defeat the Ottoman rulers, cut off Britain from its Empire, and recreate the empire of Alexander from France to India, he become the first political leader to propose a sovereign Jewish State in Palestine: ‘Bonaparte, Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the French Republic in Africa and Asia, to the Rightful Heirs of Palestine. Israelites, unique nation, whom, in thousands of years, lust of conquest and tyranny were able to deprive of the ancestral lands only, but not of name and national existence...She offers to you at this very time, and contrary to all expectations, Israel’s patrimony...Rightful heirs of Palestine...hasten! Now is the moment which may not return for thousands of years, to claim the restoration of your rights among the population of the universe which had shamefully withheld from you for thousands of years, your political existence as a nation among the nations, and the unlimited natural right to worship Yehovah in accordance with your faith, publicly and in likelihood for ever (Joel 4:20).’
Napoleon believed that with sympathetic Jews controlling Palestine, French imperial and commercial interests as far as India, Arabia and Africa could be secured.Neither Napoleon nor the Jews were able to deliver. Nevertheless his proclamation ‘is a barometer of the extent to which the European atmosphere was charged with these messianic expectations.’ The European Powers became increasingly preoccupied with the ‘Eastern Question’. Britain and Prussia sided with the Sultan of Turkey against Napoleon and his vassal, Mehemet Ali. The necessity of preventing French control had led not only to the battles of the Nile and Acre, but also to a British military expedition in Palestine. With the defeat of Napoleon, Britain’s main concern was how to restrain Russia. The race was on to control Palestine.
Stirred by memories of the Napoleonic expedition, Lord Shaftesbury argued for a greater British presence in Palestine and saw this could be achieved by the sponsorship of aJewish homeland on both religious and political grounds.British protection of the Jews, he argued, would give a colonial advantage over France for the control of the Middle East; provide better access to India via a direct land route; and open up new commercial markets for British products.
In 1839, Shaftesbury wrote an anonymous 30 page article for the Quarterly Review, entitled ‘State and Restauration (sic) of the Jews.’ In it Shaftesbury advocated a Jewish national homeland with Jerusalem the capital, remaining under Turkish rule but with British protection.
Shaftesbury predicted a new era for the Jews:
‘…the Jews must be encouraged to return in yet greater numbers and become once more the husbandman of Judea and Galilee ... though admittedly a stiff-necked, dark hearted people, and sunk in moral degradation, obduracy, and ignorance of the Gospel...…not only worthy of salvation but also vital to Christianity’s hope of salvation.’
When Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary, married Shaftsbury’s widowed mother-in-law, he was ‘well placed’ to lobby for this cause. His diary for 1st August 1840 Shaftesbury reads:
‘Dined with Palmerston. After dinner left alone with him. Propounded my scheme which seems to strike his fancy. He asked questions and readily promised to consider it. How singular is the order of Providence. Singular, if estimated by man’s ways. Palmerston had already been chosen by God to be an instrument of good to His ancient people, to do homage to their inheritance, and to recognize their rights without believing their destiny. It seems he will yet do more. hough the motive be kind, it is not sound … he weeps not, like his Master, over Jerusalem, nor prays that now, at last, she may put on her beautiful garments.’
Two weeks later, a lead article in The London Times, dated 17 August 1840, called for a plan ‘to plant the Jewish people in the land of their fathers’, claiming such a plan was under ‘serious political consideration’. Palmerston commended the efforts of Shaftesbury, the plan’s author as both ‘practical and statesmanlike’. Fuelling speculation about an imminent restoration, on 4 November of 1840, Shaftesbury took out a paid advertisement in The Times to give greater visibility to his vision. The advertisement included the following:
‘RESTORATION OF THE JEWS. A memorandum has been addressed to the Protestant monarchs of Europe on the subject of the restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine. The document in question, dictated by a peculiar conjunction of affairs in the East, and other striking “signs of the times”, reverts to the original covenant which secures that land to the descendants of Abraham.’
The influence of Lord Shaftesbury, therefore, in promoting the Zionist cause within the political, diplomatic, and ecclesiastical establishment in Britain was immense. Wagner claims, ‘He single-handedly translated the theological positions of Brightman, Henry Finch, and John Nelson Darby into a political strategy. His high political connections, matched by his uncanny instincts, combined to advance the Christian Zionist vision.’
Indeed it was probably Shaftesbury who inspired Israel Zangwell and Theodore Herzl to coin the phrase, ‘A land of no people for a people with no land.’ Shaftesbury, a generation earlier, imagining Palestine to be empty, had come up with the slogan, ‘A country without a nation for a nation without a country.’
Like Moses, Shaftesbury did not live to see his ‘Promised Land’ realised. However, through his lobbying, writings and public speaking he did more than any other British politician to inspire a generation of Joshuas to translate his religious vision into a political reality.
Over the past two centuries, Christianity (particularly in the English speaking world) has conceded a significant portion of its traditional symbolism to Judaism. The new testament and the majority of Christian writings up until the 20th century didn’t regard the jews to be significant, and certainly didn’t consider their restoration to have apocalyptic implications, the general consensus was that the prophecies mentioned in the old testament were fulfilled by the time of Christ. However, in a process that began with people like Shaftsbury and culminated with the Holocaust, the foundation of Israel and later Vatican II Christianity wound up giving Jews primacy to the title of The Chosen People and hereby implied rights to the Promised Land and effectively made prophetic Zionism the ‘state religion’ of Christendom (and later Israel) unifying judaism and Christianity into a single religion with the jews playing the traditional role of the pilgrim/crusader, transforming the jews from a loosely connected religious diaspora to a German Volke spearheading the eternal crusade in the service of true Christendom.
discipline posted:
I like talking about christian zionism, I lived in the same city as The Holy Land Experience for a while
also I did some research on it once for a professor, it's pretty nuts I guess they have orgs that pay for jews to go back to israel? like 8k a head or something. really wild. the dude who ran the org advocated shooting muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood. wild.
didnt that guy work directly for the American government as a GWOT training instructor at some point?
i just dont know if i can ever understand a society that makes up a bunch of labyrinthine, arbitrary rules and then immediately makes up 10 transparent and zero-effort exceptions to each one of those very same rules. no wonder they all go to law school
Superabound posted:
can anyone here who is an expert on Jews please explain the Eruv thing to me? Do Jews really think they can trick God with a piece of string?
i just dont know if i can ever understand a society that makes up a bunch of labyrinthine, arbitrary rules and then immediately makes up 10 transparent and zero-effort exceptions to each one of those very same rules. no wonder they all go to law school
The original 5 books, the ones with all the rules are really very ancient texts, the fact that many of these rules have become inconvenient has already become apparent during ancient times when many of them were eased, why do people always focus on the silly stuff like the sabbath elevators when the old testament forbids usury, why did Christ get so pissed off at the temple?
pre-christian judaism obviously had significant focus on the segregation between those who followed the true God and those who followed other gods but after Christ and once the majority of jews migrated from palestine (or followed Christ) and lived among 'the nations' the core significance of observing the laws was to maintain this segregation, the rules which became important were those who identify you as a jews, you know the stuff you can't easily fake.
Two thousand years of trying to pretend you live according to some archaic code of laws which has nothing to do with life as you actually live it yields some pretty creative theological solutions.
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
i love torah numerology. its like YO CHECK IT OUT IF YOU HAVE LIKE MILLIONS OF LETTERS THAT ARE ALSO NUBMERS MADE IN A LANGUAGE WHICH HAS SPECIFIC RULES ABOUT HOW/WHERE/IN WHAT QUANTITY THOSE LETTERNUMBERS CAN OCCUR AND THEN YOU MAKE THEM LETTERS INTO NUMBERS YOU WILL FIND REPITITIONS AND PATTERNS AND SHIT hurr hurrr
real hebrew, that of the old testament, and ancient semitic languages in general are actually not very strict with their rules, often same words are spelled differently, verbs are conjugated using different forms, etc etc, modern hebrew is actually styled after arabic grammar and both language are much more strict than ancient hebrew. the repetition in the old testament is usually not linguistic in nature but rather stylistic.
This isn't an effective argument against jewish numerology. the standard argument would suffice.
i'm tired of this planet's discourse revolving around .3% of it's people.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
again with the fucking jews?
i'm tired of this planet's discourse revolving around .3% of it's people.
But that's the fucking point innit? the old testament is as christian as it is jewish while zionism is more christian than it is jewish. it is christianity which makes the jews significant, not the jews themselves. by conceding the old testament to judaism christendom has assimilated the jews and has conferred upon them a significant 'mystical' role which is why jews have become ever more prominent these past two centuries in 'western discourse'
Transient_Grace posted:
The original 5 books, the ones with all the rules are really very ancient texts, the fact that many of these rules have become inconvenient has already become apparent during ancient times when many of them were eased, why do people always focus on the silly stuff like the sabbath elevators when the old testament forbids usury, why did Christ get so pissed off at the temple?
Technically it only forbade usury among Jews, Jews were still allowed to jew the absolute hell out of everyone else. And they still do bring the hammer down when a Jew rips off another Jew (Madoff for example). The entirety of Jewish law is absolutely full of these kinds of double standards.
But this all get to my point. Modern Jews know the laws were just the social conventions of now-irrelevant ancient people. But instead of being honest with themselves and admitting it, and no longer putting any importance on those laws, they pathetically come up with these transparently and absurdly bullshit ways of getting around them so they can continue to live normal modern lives. As if anyone who actually took their own religion seriously could honestly think you could loophole yourself around a Commandment from an omniscient God with A PIECE OF FUCKING STRING
Groulxsmith posted:
suggesting that there has been some sudden theological shift in the last two centuries that gives disproportionate attention to the jew is pretty much ignoring the history of jews throughout the middle ages, which was really the foundation for many of the issues facing jewry much later (ghettoization, expulsions, usury, etc.)
once the west has become christian it was inevitable for jews to receive disproportionate attention given the dialectical tension between the sister religions. the shift is not in the attention in itself, but rather its focus and its political significance.
Transient_Grace posted:Groulxsmith posted:
suggesting that there has been some sudden theological shift in the last two centuries that gives disproportionate attention to the jew is pretty much ignoring the history of jews throughout the middle ages, which was really the foundation for many of the issues facing jewry much later (ghettoization, expulsions, usury, etc.)once the west has become christian it was inevitable for jews to receive disproportionate attention given the dialectical tension between the sister religions. the shift is not in the attention in itself, but rather its focus and its political significance.
why would there be an inevitable dialectic tension; pretty early into the history of the church it was certainly more greek than jewish in just about every conceivable way, to the point that to a jew of probably just a century after christ, the christian church unrecognizable from any mainstream practice of judaism
unless you mean the last two centuries thing; in which case it's much easier to describe as a political/economic phenomenon rather than a theological necessity
the idea that christian zionism has any real currency outside of relatively new, protestant churches (though a very politically useful idea) is pretty odd
Superabound posted:
its almost conceptually identical to the "i was in a different area code, so its technically not cheating" argument
that is actually almost a verbatim quote of a verse from the old testament.
Superabound posted:
But this all get to my point. Modern Jews know the laws were just the social conventions of now-irrelevant ancient people. But instead of being honest with themselves and admitting it, and no longer putting any importance on those laws, they pathetically come up with these transparently and absurdly bullshit ways of getting around them so they can continue to live normal modern lives. As if anyone who actually took their own religion seriously could honestly think you could loophole yourself around a Commandment from an omniscient God with A PIECE OF FUCKING STRING
yeah but essentially the scripture that so called 'modern jews' adhere to on a daily basis is actually not the original set of rules found in old testament but rather the entire body of the talmud, the authors of which enjoy a status similar to that of the original prophets, a jew would consider it ridiculous for us to attempt to understand the actual meaning of verses from the old testament without deferring to the explanatory power of the talmud.
remember that this goes both ways, some rules were made more severe while others were eased and worked around.
Edited by Transient_Grace ()
Superabound posted:Transient_Grace posted:
The original 5 books, the ones with all the rules are really very ancient texts, the fact that many of these rules have become inconvenient has already become apparent during ancient times when many of them were eased, why do people always focus on the silly stuff like the sabbath elevators when the old testament forbids usury, why did Christ get so pissed off at the temple?Technically it only forbade usury among Jews, Jews were still allowed to jew the absolute hell out of everyone else. And they still do bring the hammer down when a Jew rips off another Jew (Madoff for example). The entirety of Jewish law is absolutely full of these kinds of double standards.
But this all get to my point. Modern Jews know the laws were just the social conventions of now-irrelevant ancient people. But instead of being honest with themselves and admitting it, and no longer putting any importance on those laws, they pathetically come up with these transparently and absurdly bullshit ways of getting around them so they can continue to live normal modern lives. As if anyone who actually took their own religion seriously could honestly think you could loophole yourself around a Commandment from an omniscient God with A PIECE OF FUCKING STRING
i don't think you know what you're talking about
you're kind of conflating the majority of jews who are secular (and as you suggested, do not put importance on those laws) and live "normal modern lives" with the orthodox who certainly do hold to the laws, but nobody would suggest they live typical western lives. the ultra-orthodox (which is what you seem to be picturing with the string) live in extremely insular communities, marry at a very young age, speak yiddish, don't attend public schools, work in their communities or become students of religion, etc.
Groulxsmith posted:
why would there be an inevitable dialectic tension; pretty early into the history of the church it was certainly more greek than jewish in just about every conceivable way, to the point that to a jew of probably just a century after christ, the christian church unrecognizable from any mainstream practice of judaism
unless you mean the last two centuries thing; in which case it's much easier to describe as a political/economic phenomenon rather than a theological necessity
the idea that christian zionism has any real currency outside of relatively new, protestant churches (though a very politically useful idea) is pretty odd
As Israel Jacob Yuval argues in his book "Two Nations In Your Womb" the dialectical tension is actually very apparent when you examine the early talmud and the way jewish traditions have developed in the diaspora. essentially once jews were assimilated as a minority within a gentile (and later christian) majority segregation and exclusion became ever more important. In the same way that the new testament devotes significant portions to rejecting the dietary laws and the other rules which made it difficult for believers to consort with non-believers the talmud places extra significance on those very rules.
as for christian zionism, it very clearly predates jewish zionism; secular zionism is far more compatible with evangelical christianity than it is with any brand of judaism until Isaac Kook came up with Religious Zionism in the 1930s. Clearly people like Lord Balfour were extremely instrumental to zionism and its hard to imagine zionism taking the path it did without prominent christian involvement and support.
Groulxsmith posted:
i don't think you know what you're talking about
you're kind of conflating the majority of jews who are secular (and as you suggested, do not put importance on those laws) and live "normal modern lives" with the orthodox who certainly do hold to the laws, but nobody would suggest they live typical western lives. the ultra-orthodox (which is what you seem to be picturing with the string) live in extremely insular communities, marry at a very young age, speak yiddish, don't attend public schools, work in their communities or become students of religion, etc.
ima secluar crhistian
Transient_Grace posted:
As Israel Jacob Yuval argues in his book "Two Nations In Your Womb" the dialectical tension is actually very apparent when you examine the early talmud and the way jewish traditions have developed in the diaspora. essentially once jews were assimilated as a minority within a gentile (and later christian) majority segregation and exclusion became ever more important. In the same way that the new testament devotes significant portions to rejecting the dietary laws and the other rules which made it difficult for believers to consort with non-believers the talmud places extra significance on those very rules.
that has nothing to do with the need for some inevitable dialectical battle from the point of view of christianity though
Transient_Grace posted:
as for christian zionism, it very clearly predates jewish zionism; secular zionism is far more compatible with evangelical christianity than it is with any brand of judaism until Isaac Kook came up with Religious Zionism in the 1930s. Clearly people like Lord Balfour were extremely instrumental to zionism and its hard to imagine zionism taking the path it did without prominent christian involvement and support.
isn't that just another way of putting that actually existing zionism took off when it became politically expedient, as in a suitable post-colonial arrangement, and nothing to do with a shift in christianity
2. the fact of the matter is that the concept of the jewish state first originated in christian circles both as a messianic thought and as a possible answer to the 'jewish question', this is pretty obvious when you look at early prominent zionist christians like Lord Shaftsbury.
Edited by Transient_Grace ()
Transient_Grace posted:
real hebrew, that of the old testament, and ancient semitic languages in general are actually not very strict with their rules, often same words are spelled differently, verbs are conjugated using different forms, etc etc, modern hebrew is actually styled after arabic grammar and both language are much more strict than ancient hebrew. the repetition in the old testament is usually not linguistic in nature but rather stylistic.
This isn't an effective argument against jewish numerology. the standard argument would suffice.
all languages have rules you twatter. even if there are weird conjugations and things are 'spelled differently' doesnt mean theres still a finite set of things that can occur lol
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:Transient_Grace posted:
real hebrew, that of the old testament, and ancient semitic languages in general are actually not very strict with their rules, often same words are spelled differently, verbs are conjugated using different forms, etc etc, modern hebrew is actually styled after arabic grammar and both language are much more strict than ancient hebrew. the repetition in the old testament is usually not linguistic in nature but rather stylistic.
This isn't an effective argument against jewish numerology. the standard argument would suffice.all languages have rules you twatter. even if there are weird conjugations and things are 'spelled differently' doesnt mean theres still a finite set of things that can occur lol
your argument is crap, that fact that patterns exist in language is completly immaterial, patterns can be found in everything, biblical numerologists would claim that the patterns in the bible are 'clearly' meaningful and prophetic. so wtg disproving numerology by going "lol! patterns! can't you see!".
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:
OK so stop trying to act like you know something about linguistics to disagree with me for some reason..
it is retarded because it attributes mystic power and divine meaning to coincidental phrases which come up when you assign arbitrary numeric values to words and then perform basic aritmetic operations with those values. patterns are hardly relevant and in fact biblical hebrew is appealing to numerological whackjobs especially due its inconsistant use of grammar and spelling, they have the opportunity to claim that these variations are meaningful from a numerological perspective and that the verses should accordingly be interpreted differntly.
anyway, this thread really isn't about jewish mysticism, which is clearly idolatry and an affront to God.
Edited by Transient_Grace ()