VOTE! Do You support Lebanon or Israel?

Do you support Lebanon or Israel?

  • Lebanon.

    Votes: 19 31.1%
  • Israel.

    Votes: 24 39.3%
  • Neutral/Neither/Other-Option (tell us in the comments.)

    Votes: 18 29.5%

  • Total voters
    61
... why wouldn't we?
They killed our savior and now they wear the identity and significance of a status that only the church actually possesses like a stolen crown. I’m surprised that you aren’t joking in making a comment like this, but I guess you aren’t entirely knowledgeable of some of the stuff being discussed here, and I would be happy to talk about it with you. I can’t elaborate on what I have just written in my first sentence at the moment, but when I get home I’ll be able to speak further on the topic.
 
They killed our savior and now they wear the identity and significance of a status that only the church actually possesses like a stolen crown. I’m surprised that you aren’t joking in making a comment like this, but I guess you aren’t entirely knowledgeable of some of the stuff being discussed here, and I would be happy to talk about it with you. I can’t elaborate on what I have just written in my first sentence at the moment, but when I get home I’ll be able to speak further on the topic.
Jews are God's chosen people, lil goy.
 
They killed our savior and now they wear the identity and significance of a status that only the church actually possesses like a stolen crown. I’m surprised that you aren’t joking in making a comment like this, but I guess you aren’t entirely knowledgeable of some of the stuff being discussed here, and I would be happy to talk about it with you. I can’t elaborate on what I have just written in my first sentence at the moment, but when I get home I’ll be able to speak further on the topic.
If Jesus never died then there would be no resurrection, no salvation. Not to mention it was the Roman governor who crucified Jesus.
 
If Jesus never died then there would be no resurrection, no salvation
I find this logic to be faulty if you're trying to defend Christ's killers in using it. Let's think of it with an analogy of another historical event, to equate this understanding to. In 1932, Charles Lindbergh's infant son was abducted from his home and later murdered. The incident sparked widespread concern regarding crimes of such a nature, and, soon after this incident, the U.S Congress passed the Federal Kidnapping Law, which would escalate any case of kidnapping to a federal authority's responsibility if the kidnapper and their victim crossed state lines. So, who passed this law?
Well, I'm rather certain it wasn't Bruno Hauptmann, the kidnapper himself! Rather, it was the Congress, right? We can see the same thing here, in Christ's case. It wasn't Christ's killers who then resurrected Him, but, in fact, God Himself. Therefore, we can not equate the responsibility of the murder of our Christ with His resurrection, as if to say that the killers were justified in killing Him. It was prophesied that He would be killed, certainly, but to then say that the fulfillment of the prophecy means that His killing in and of itself was a good act is simply ridiculous, isn't it? I hope that can be understood.
Not to mention it was the Roman governor who crucified Jesus.
This is a misunderstanding that I see show up quite a bit in discussions like these. I have to disagree with you on this, as such. The Gospel of Matthew clearly depicts my perspective (of the blood being on the hands of the Jews) being the clear case; in their own words, even!
>So when Pilate [the Roman governor] saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” - Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, Verses 24-25
And Saint Paul's words, too.
>For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. - First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2, Verses 14-15
And, of course, since you lean towards a Catholic perspective, you can also look to the words of a saint like Saint John Chrysostom, a saint of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, to reaffirm this for you, if that at all helps you to further your knowledge regarding this topic.
 
I find this logic to be faulty if you're trying to defend Christ's killers in using it. Let's think of it with an analogy of another historical event, to equate this understanding to. In 1932, Charles Lindbergh's infant son was abducted from his home and later murdered. The incident sparked widespread concern regarding crimes of such a nature, and, soon after this incident, the U.S Congress passed the Federal Kidnapping Law, which would escalate any case of kidnapping to a federal authority's responsibility if the kidnapper and their victim crossed state lines. So, who passed this law?
Well, I'm rather certain it wasn't Bruno Hauptmann, the kidnapper himself! Rather, it was the Congress, right? We can see the same thing here, in Christ's case. It wasn't Christ's killers who then resurrected Him, but, in fact, God Himself. Therefore, we can not equate the responsibility of the murder of our Christ with His resurrection, as if to say that the killers were justified in killing Him. It was prophesied that He would be killed, certainly, but to then say that the fulfillment of the prophecy means that His killing in and of itself was a good act is simply ridiculous, isn't it? I hope that can be understood.

This is a misunderstanding that I see show up quite a bit in discussions like these. I have to disagree with you on this, as such. The Gospel of Matthew clearly depicts my perspective (of the blood being on the hands of the Jews) being the clear case; in their own words, even!
>So when Pilate [the Roman governor] saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” - Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 27, Verses 24-25
And Saint Paul's words, too.
>For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. - First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2, Verses 14-15
And, of course, since you lean towards a Catholic perspective, you can also look to the words of a saint like Saint John Chrysostom, a saint of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, to reaffirm this for you, if that at all helps you to further your knowledge regarding this topic.
OK. Sorry.
 
I hope you get well soon. I had a cold from last Thursday to last weekend's Saturday night. Terrible feeling.
My dickhead brother gave it to me. I was already pretty mad at him because I had a dream where he was playing Minecraft on my computer and I threw a tantrum over it.
 
Back
Top