Would Jesus have approved of the Holocaust?

[© tweed]

Vote

[afleitch]

Considering it was designed to eradicate Gods 'chosen people' (Sorry Pat Robertson, that it ain't you) along with the disabled, the Romany, homosexuals and a few political dissidents along the way then it's safe to say I don't think he would have approved.

[Bono]

Considering it was designed to eradicate Gods 'chosen people' (Sorry Pat Robertson, that it ain't you) along with the disabled, the Romany, homosexuals and a few political dissidents along the way then it's safe to say I don't think he would have approved.

I know jmfcst is going to flame me for this, but since I've learned to ignore dispensationalist ramblings by now, I'll say it anyway. The Jews aren't God's chosen people anymore. The new covenant voided the old one. God's chosen people now are Christians worldwide, the members of the invisible church.

[afleitch]

Considering it was designed to eradicate Gods 'chosen people' (Sorry Pat Robertson, that it ain't you) along with the disabled, the Romany, homosexuals and a few political dissidents along the way then it's safe to say I don't think he would have approved.

I know jmfcst is going to flame me for this, but since I've learned to ignore dispensationalist ramblings by now, I'll say it anyway. The Jews aren't God's chosen people anymore. The new covenant voided the old one. God's chosen people now are Christians worldwide, the members of the invisible church.

I know, on a technical note, which is why I put it in parenthasis. But the reasoning still stands. I think it is a bit of a pointless question really

[MODU]

Another WWJD thread? 

[riceowl]

...why would He have?

[KEmperor]

God's chosen people now are Christians worldwide, the members of the invisible church.

I hate invisible churches.

[afleitch]

God's chosen people now are Christians worldwide, the members of the invisible church.

I hate invisible churches.

They are just as bad as invisible schools

[minionofmidas]

re Bono - maybe. But Jesus wouldn't have agreed in his lifetime if you put that notion to him, and this was about "What would Jesus do?"

[Bono]

re Bono - maybe. But Jesus wouldn't have agreed in his lifetime if you put that notion to him, and this was about "What would Jesus do?"

Jesus is a part of the Trinity--so He is God. God inspired Paul to write his Letter to the Romans where that was explicitated. So yes, JEsus would have and does agree.
I'm not saying Jesus would have aproved of the holocaust though.

[minionofmidas]

re Bono - maybe. But Jesus wouldn't have agreed in his lifetime if you put that notion to him, and this was about "What would Jesus do?"

Jesus is a part of the Trinity--so He is God. God inspired Paul to write his Letter to the Romans where that was explicitated. So yes, JEsus would have and does agree.

If so, Jesus was pretty duplicitous during his thirty years though. He certainly wouldn't have let on anything about a notion such as this.

[MaC]

definitely

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Considering it was designed to eradicate Gods 'chosen people' (Sorry Pat Robertson, that it ain't you) along with the disabled, the Romany, homosexuals and a few political dissidents along the way then it's safe to say I don't think he would have approved.

I know jmfcst is going to flame me for this, but since I've learned to ignore dispensationalist ramblings by now, I'll say it anyway. The Jews aren't God's chosen people anymore. The new covenant voided the old one. God's chosen people now are Christians worldwide, the members of the invisible church.

just a note to say that you are misrepresenting my views by oversimplifying the standing of the Jews:

First, it MUST be understood that God called Israel...AND that a "calling" can not be REcalled..."God's gifts and his call are irrevocable (Rom 11:29)"

Second, the New Covenant, which you correctly stated voided the old covenant, was made with none other than ISRAEL: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jer 31:31)"...so your pointing to the New Covenant in an attempt to justify your opinion that the Jews aren't God's chosen people is as pointless as it is contradictory.

Third, the Jews will change from their current state of rejection of Christ: "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.  And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: 'The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.' (Rom 11:25-26)"
 

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that the Old Testament is filled with story after story of the elder brother(s) incurring JHVH's wrath in some fashion and being dispossesed in favor of the younger, the idea of JHVH abandoning the Jews in favor of somebody else isn't all that far fetched.  The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Definitely not

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Given that the Old Testament is filled with story after story of the elder brother(s) incurring JHVH's wrath in some fashion and being dispossesed in favor of the younger, the idea of JHVH abandoning the Jews in favor of somebody else isn't all that far fetched.  The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

Not saying it is far-fetched, simply saying it is wrong....

Rom 11:1 " Did God reject his people? By no means!..."

Rom 11:2 "...God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew."

Rom 11:11 "Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!"

Rom 11:23 "And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again."

Rom 11:25 "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.  And so all Israel will be saved."

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Given that the Old Testament is filled with story after story of the elder brother(s) incurring JHVH's wrath in some fashion and being dispossesed in favor of the younger, the idea of JHVH abandoning the Jews in favor of somebody else isn't all that far fetched.  The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

Indeed. *is glad to be both not the first born and atheist*

[Speed of Sound]

Write In: I dont care if he did or didnt, but seeing his teachings, no. Old Testament God on the other hand..... 

[opebo]

Might as well ask 'What Would Bertie Wooster Do?'

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

But weren't Enoch (taken directly into heaven without experiencing death), Noah (the only righteous man found on earth), Abraham (the father of the faithful and the recipient of God's inheritance), and Jesus (Son of God) all the first born?

I believe you're taking a handful of cases (e.g. Ishmael/Isaac, Esau/Jacob) where the firstborn was not the child of promise and making too broad of a conclusion.

[Ebowed]

The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

Although it's still better than being an unborn fetus, a newly married woman who is found not to be a virgin, or a child who teases a prophet for being bald.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

Although it's still better than being an unborn fetus, a newly married woman who is found not to be a virgin, or a child who teases a prophet for being bald.

Indeed. Didn't bears rip that child apart?

[Ebowed]

The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

Although it's still better than being an unborn fetus, a newly married woman who is found not to be a virgin, or a child who teases a prophet for being bald.

Indeed. Didn't bears rip that child apart?

Actually, it was 42 children, all of which were ripped apart by bears.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The very last thing you want to be in an Old Testament tale is the first born.

Although it's still better than being an unborn fetus, a newly married woman who is found not to be a virgin, or a child who teases a prophet for being bald.

Indeed. Didn't bears rip that child apart?

Actually, it was 42 children, all of which were ripped apart by bears.

Kewl. I'd love to see that.