Red Heifer Birth Paves Way For Renewed Temple Service

[Thunderian]

That's reassuring (not). Was it out of respect that the late Ariel Sharon, of Sabra and Shatila fame -rather, infamy- took a stroll, with a sizeable retinue of well-armed Israeli soldiers, onto the Temple Mount in 2000 and thus incited the predictable uprising, the (2nd) intifada, of rock- and chair-throwing Palestinians and Muslims? How are you able to state, with such apparent certainty, the long-range goals of the Israeli military and intelligence community? Is that what you are here doing, by speaking for "the" Jews, as you put it?

Why can’t Muslims just let Jews visit their own holiest site? Why does there always have to be a violent response?

 

[Serveto]

Why can’t Muslims just let Jews visit their own holiest site? Why does there always have to be a violent response?

Do you think that was Ariel Sharon's intent: to "visit" the Temple Mount? Anyway, I was under the impression that Jews, devout Jews at any rate, were not supposed to set foot on the Temple Mount unless and until they "purified" it with the ritual blood-letting of a perfect red heifer. Then again, except when I read and participate in these threads, I haven't exactly kept up with the legal intricacies of animal sacrifice as religious observation as geopolitics.

 

[Thunderian]

Do you think that was Ariel Sharon's intent: to "visit" the Temple Mount? Anyway, I was under the impression that Jews, devout Jews at any rate, were not supposed to set foot on the Temple Mount unless and until they "purified" it with the ritual blood-letting of a perfect red heifer. Then again, except when I read and participate in these threads, I haven't exactly kept up with the legal intricacies of animal sacrifice as religious observation as geopolitics.

Do you think the reaction from the “religion of peace” to one old, fat Jew walking on the Temple Mount was justified? On what grounds?

Muslims have unlimited, 24-hour, access to the Temple Mount. Jews are allowed to visit in small groups for a couple hours each day, and are not even allowed to pray while they do so. Even so, they are constantly subjected to harassment and violent attacks when they visit. You agree this is reasonable?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Do you think the reaction from the “religion of peace” to one old, fat Jew walking on the Temple Mount was justified? On what grounds?

Muslims have unlimited, 24-hour, access to the Temple Mount. Jews are allowed to visit in small groups for a couple hours each day, and are not even allowed to pray while they do so. Even so, they are constantly subjected to harassment and violent attacks when they visit. You agree this is reasonable?

I think it is entirely unreasonable.

Sorry to interrupt, just saying.

 

[Serveto]

Do you think the reaction from the “religion of peace” to one old, fat Jew walking on the Temple Mount was justified? On what grounds?

Muslims have unlimited, 24-hour, access to the Temple Mount. Jews are allowed to visit in small groups for a couple hours each day, and are not even allowed to pray while they do so. Even so, they are constantly subjected to harassment and violent attacks when they visit. You agree this is reasonable?

Which "religion of peace," Judaism? Ariel Sharon, that "one, old fat Jew," wasn't alone, either on the Temple Mount or at the Sabra and Shatila massacre. One of the better, if controversial, decrying commentaries on that blood-letting was penned, in response, by a descendant, in part, of Jews, the late Christopher Hitchens, thus proving, once again, that "the" Jews are not a monolithic, invariably far-right hive.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

Do you think the reaction from the “religion of peace” to one old, fat Jew walking on the Temple Mount was justified? On what grounds?

Muslims have unlimited, 24-hour, access to the Temple Mount. Jews are allowed to visit in small groups for a couple hours each day, and are not even allowed to pray while they do so. Even so, they are constantly subjected to harassment and violent attacks when they visit. You agree this is reasonable?

Are you sure that's what happened? According to Hararetz correspondent, Nir Hasson, this is what transpired:

"As a result, while tens of thousands of Muslim worshipers crammed into the Temple Mount compound, police had to block entry to the few hundred Temple Mount activists who had gathered at the Mughrabi Gate. The activists had to suffice with prayers and protests at the entrance. Some of them burst inside and ripped down the long-hanging sign posted by the Chief Rabbinate stating that according to Jewish law, a Jew should not enter the compound.

But around two hours later, the Muslim crowds started to leave to celebrate the holiday with their families. The Muslim presence in the compound thinned out somewhat and at the same time the right-wing pressure on the police intensified. Transportation Minister Bezalel Smotrich tweeted and the Ynet website reported that the decision to close the mount to Jews had been made with the approval of the prime minister, increasing pressure on police commanders even more.

First a company of riot police were sent into the compound, and in the ensuing clashes 14 Palestinians and four policemen were injured. Afterward, under heavy security and continued clashes, the police succeeded in paving the way for several hundred Jews to enter. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could now claim that there was never a question about whether Jews could enter the Temple Mount on Tisha B’av, only how it would happen while best preserving public safety. In the end, a small group of Jewish activists exploiting their good connections in the right-wing parties and the sensitivity of the pre-election period managed to overturn a professional decision by the police." (source)

 

[Serveto]

... Some of them burst inside and ripped down the long-hanging sign posted by the Chief Rabbinate stating that according to Jewish law, a Jew should not enter the compound ....at the same time the right-wing pressure on the police intensified ...

Very interesting. Thank you.

 

[Karlysymon]

As I watch this I cannot help but wonder why bright, thoughtful people can entirely miss the point. The “red heifer” is a physical illustration of the purity of the promised messiah. God couldn’t care less about the power of the ashes of a burnt cow, but gave it to point forward to something He would do in the fullness of time - send His son as a perfect, sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

But the 1st Century Jews didn’t get it, and neither do the 21st!

One of the hardest things to do as a parent is to stand back and allow your kids to make their own mistakes....

Romans 11

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,​

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;​

27 For this is My covenant with them,​

When I take away their sins.”​

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord?​

Or who has become His counselor?”​

35 “Or who has first given to Him​

And it shall be repaid to him?”​

36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Red, have you perhaps, considered this willful disobedience rather than just some childish blindness or ignorance?

Caiaphas (John 11:48-53)
If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”
And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for [e]us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority;but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.

He and the Sanhedrin knew exactly what they were doing. I mean, his own office, as the high priest, was the shadow of that of Whom they were plotting to kill. Also, weren’t you the one who sometime back posted a video of some dead rabbi of theirs who had declared that Jesus was the Messiah? I concede that this willful disobedience may not apply to everyone but I can’t say the same for the spiritual leaders: the rabbis, scholars etc. To me, this lends weight to the conspiracy that the Pharisees went underground after 70AD and that those behind the Temple Institute, as the 21st century progeny of the Pharisees of old, looking to restore the glory and office of their progenitors.

I found this comment somewhere. What are your thoughts?

The Zionists are just the modern iteration of the Baal-worshiping, Covenant-breaking Israelites whom Elijah contended with on Mt. Carmel. The Zionists come in the mold of Ahab, Manasseh, Jehoram and Herod, not in the mold of King David. The Zionists are having their day in the sun, but will bring Israel to ruin the same way their brothers-in-arms Simon bar Giora, Eleazar ben Simon, and John of Giscala brought Jerusalem to ruin in 70AD.

Would you consider Ahab and those pushing for rebuilding of the temple to be cut from the same cloth?

 

[Thunderian]

I think it is entirely unreasonable.

Sorry to interrupt, just saying.

That’s because you’re a reasonable man, Red.

Notice how no one else will address that question, though. They just whine about fat Arik Sharon’s “storming” of the Mount twenty years ago, even though, if you watch videos of the event, it’s clear that the only thing Sharon could have stormed that day was the buffet at the Knesset.

 

[Serveto]

That’s because you’re a reasonable man, Red.

Notice how no one else will address that question, though. They just whine about fat Arik Sharon’s “storming” of the Mount twenty years ago, even though, if you watch videos of the event, it’s clear that the only thing Sharon could have stormed that day was the buffet at the Knesset.

Yes, Christian Zionists are known, worldwide, for their "reason" when it comes to the finer points of Jewish-Muslim relations.

 

[Thunderian]

Yes, Christian Zionists are known, worldwide, for their "reason" when it comes to the finer points of Jewish-Muslim relations.

This isn't about Christianity, or Zionism, both of which you know nothing.

Go ahead and defend the "reasonable" reaction of Muslims when any Jew tries to visit the Temple Mount.

 

[Serveto]

This isn't about Christianity, or Zionism, both of which you know nothing.

It's very much about both. Why does the subject interest you, and why did you presume to speak for, and about, the goals of Israel and to, as I see it, falsely reassure us of its plans? I brought an example from the not distant past, of Ariel Sharon, and you said, or implied, that I am "whining."

Go ahead and defend the "reasonable" reaction of Muslims when any Jew tries to visit the Temple Mount.

I've done nothing of the sort. I asked you what Ariel Sharon's intention was when he "visited" the Temple Mount.

 

[Infinityloop]

It's a bizzare situation that's for sure. I commented the last page because I heard (prior to that comment) from some other forum that there would be a publicity stunt panned days in advance. Turns out they were right.
I have no interest in Jerusalem though and even though I'm a Muslim I don't really consider the temple mount to be 'sacred', that whole part of Jerusalem is connected to the Templars, the Crusades and all that related occult stuff.

 

[Karlysymon]

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

I believe in replacement theology and since its been called a heresy or anti-semitism, you could help clear this up for me. If, as the scriptures say, all Israel will be saved. Does that mean that all present-day Jews will be saved? That none of them will perish? Ofcourse, you don’t believe in Universal Reconciliation, so that must mean the salvation of every living Jew will happen before the end of this age, right?

 

[Serveto]

I believe in replacement theology ...

*Gasp!* I recommend a few months "re-education" under the competent tutelage of Imam John Hagee, paying particular attention to his and, just incidently, the pope's "dual covenant" theology to improve your understanding. Once done, an all expenses paid (by the proceeds of Sheldon Adelson's casinos) trip to the Holy Land should set you right for life.

 

[Todd]

I believe in replacement theology and since its been called a heresy or anti-semitism, you could help clear this up for me. If, as the scriptures say, all Israel will be saved. Does that mean that all present-day Jews will be saved? That none of them will perish? Ofcourse, you don’t believe in Universal Reconciliation, so that must mean the salvation of every living Jew will happen before the end of this age, right?

 

[Lisa]

I believe in replacement theology

Why do you believe that? What scripture teaches you that?

 

[Todd]

Why do you believe that? What scripture teaches you that?

I know three passages right off the top, but I'll let @Karlysymon answer first as the question was directed at her.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I believe in replacement theology and since its been called a heresy or anti-semitism, you could help clear this up for me. If, as the scriptures say, all Israel will be saved. Does that mean that all present-day Jews will be saved? That none of them will perish? Ofcourse, you don’t believe in Universal Reconciliation, so that must mean the salvation of every living Jew will happen before the end of this age, right?

Fortunately there is a distinction between being in error over a secondary doctrine and heresy @Karlysymon (and you know I say this without malice). You can be a replacement theologian and inherit eternal life, only to find there may be more people with strong noses in the kingdom of heaven than you expected ;-)

I think the way I would read “all Israel will be saved” is that at a certain point in the future, the surviving Jews of a climactic point in history (perhaps hemmed in on all sides by the Antichrist they initially thought was their Messiah) will come to a collective realisation that Jesus was their true Messiah and mourn their national error “as one mourns an only child”.

Obviously, rather like the Rapture, this will be a “black swan” event that clearly not everyone believes in will neither have any precedent or be repeated.

Matthew 23 hints at this moment, just prior to the physical return of Jesus:-

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Which leads into a song I like!

 

[Karlysymon]

Why do you believe that? What scripture teaches you that?

We (replacement theologists) have been told time and again that the scriptures we use to buttress our position are…..well, that we are just reading the scriptures wrong. So its only fair that those who are right clear up the issue. In the Christian Zionism thread, Red said

I suggest the best Christian solution to (not) getting drawn into political Zionism on the right and replacement theology on the left is a good grounding in scripture!

Clearly then, a good scriptural grounding is important. While the question was directed at Red, you could help me and answer it.

Verses? I’ll use the very verse that Red quoted. I believe Zechariah was talking about spiritual descendants of Abraham (who is the father of all believers). If iam wrong, then just answer the question I posed to him. Will Netanyahu, the Rothschilds, Ron Dermer and Menachem Begin all be saved?

Fortunately there is a distinction between being in error over a secondary doctrine and heresy @Karlysymon (and you know I say this without malice). You can be a replacement theologian and inherit eternal life, only to find there may be more people with strong noses in the kingdom of heaven than you expected ;-)

I know you well enough now to not think you malicious. Thank you for the response. I will re-read and mull over the verse in Zechariah and maybe come back with more questions.