The Unbiblical Origins of Zionism - How the Jews Misread the Abrahamic Covenant

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Is present Israel a fulfillment of prophesy?

One of the most common assertions of the premillennial dispensationalist today is that the formation of the State of Israel in 1948 is proof that the Jews are still "God's Chosen People," and that He still has prophetic plans for them. (This has been asserted more vigorously than ever due to the recent hostilities in the Middle East). It is claimed that God was at work bringing the Jews back to their "ancient homeland," and that they have a Biblical right to claim Palestine as their own. Are these claims correct? Was the formation of the State of Israel evidence of God's blessing? Of God's election?

Just what Scriptures do dispensationalists use to support these claims? How do they come to their conclusions? As you may know already, the dispensationalist uses what he calls a "literal hermeneutic." That is, he claims to interpret the words of the Bible at face value, understanding them in their "normal," everyday usage and meaning. This extremely literal hermeneutic is then used to "interpret" the prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the return of God's people to the Holy Land. However, this literalism is also used as an excuse to ignore the plain reinterpretation by the New Testament writers of these very same prophecies. Even when the inspired writers of the New Testament give a meaning to the Old Testament. prophecies other than a "literal" one, the dispensationalist will say that this is not the complete meaning, and that these prophecies "remain to be realized for Israel."

One of the Scriptures the dispensationalist claims was fulfilled by the 1948 formation of the State of Israel is found in Ezekiel 36-37. This prophecy was given to Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity (Ezekiel 1:1-2), and foretold the eventual return of Israel to their land. Tied in with this prophecy was the prediction of the coming Messiah (Ezekiel 38), and the inauguration of the New Covenant. As we know from both secular history and the New Testament, the people did return to the land and the Messiah did come and establish the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28). Despite this, dispensationalists deny fulfillment of either of these prophecies, saying they found only a "partial fulfillment" in Israel's return and Christ's first advent. They further allege that the re-gathering of Jews to form the current State of Israel is part of the final fulfillment. They say the blessings of the "Palestinian Covenant" are only now coming into existence. The promises of such passages as Deuteronomy 30 are touted as "Scriptural basis" for Israel's re-gathering. How should we answer such claims?

According to Deuteronomy 30:1-8, a necessary condition for the re-gathering of Israel to Palestine was returning to the Lord (verses 2-3). Based on this clear passage of Scripture, it can be definitely concluded that the State of Israel, which now exists, was not formed as a result of the blessings of this covenant (the "Palestinian Covenant" of the Scofield Bible).

The Jews of 1948 (except for maybe a few isolated individuals) did not turn to the Lord. And, to base the formation of Israel upon their alleged "faithfulness" to Judaism is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what Judaism is. Some think the Jew of today has a special advantage, perhaps even salvation without Christ, because they believe in the God of the Old Testament, and follow the Old Testament religion. This overlooks the fact that the religion of the Old Testament was based on making sacrifices for sins (Leviticus 17:11). It also ignores the statements of the New Testament that there is absolutely NO salvation outside Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12), and that the Old Testament religion was no longer efficacious (Hebrews 7-10). The Lord of the New Testament is Jesus. This revelation casts light on who the Lord of the Old Testament is. For example, Peter quotes Joel 2:32 as being fulfilled in Jesus (Acts 2:21).

What shall we answer when the dispensationalist claims the existence of the State of Israel today is "proof" of God's covenant blessing upon them? With the clear backing of Scripture, we can say, "NO!" We can then point to Deuteronomy 30:1-8 as proof that the Israel of today is definitely not the Israel of the Bible! But, what about the land promised to Abraham?

Paul, in citing the promise to Abraham, does not limit the territory to Palestine: It was NOT through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith (Romans 4:13). This is an extension of the statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:5, in which the meek shall inherit not merely Palestine, but the earth. As you can see, the inheritance is for Abraham and his offspring. The dispensationalist believes Jewish people are entitled to the inheritance based on their racial extraction or ethnic heritage. But, Paul counters this idea in Galatians 3:7,29. In case he hasn't made it clear enough, Paul reiterates for those who expect some special privilege for physical descendants of Abraham: "Now to Abraham's and his seed the promises were made. He does not say, And to seeds' as of many, but as of one, And to your seed, who is Christ" (Galatians 3:16). The only way to inherit anything is in Christ! The Jewish leaders who came to John the Baptist thought the Kingdom was theirs automatically by virtue of their heritage. (Matthew 3:9). The Apostle Paul states the nature of true Jewishness in Romans 2:28,29; 9:6-8; 11:5-7.

The full scope of Israel's prophets was not nationalistic, but universal, with an increasing cosmic dimension which took in heaven and earth (Isaiah 65:17; 24:21-23). The writer of Hebrews assures them Abraham was not looking merely to Palestine for fulfillment of the promises. He looked for "a better country," and a city "whose builder and maker is God" (Hebrews 11:10,16). The continuity of the Old Testament terms and Middle East images in Hebrews assures the church that God's promise has neither failed nor been postponed, but is experienced now in Christ (Hebrews 6:5), And, the land promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in the universal Kingdom of God.

In conclusion, we have studied the subject of who God's Chosen People are, and have found that, according to the Bible, Israel is now composed of all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah. It is not correct, therefore, to state that the church has REPLACED Israel. Rather, the church IS the continuity of the Old Testament Israel of God; it has only replaced the Jewish nation. There is no more "Jew" and "Gentile" racial distinctions. All nations are now a part of Spiritual Israel in Christ. Christ's kingdom is here now in fullness. All (who were a part of the true spiritual) Israel were saved and given the inheritance (Romans 11:26).

With the advent of the war in the Middle East, many people are wondering what is taking place in a prophetic sense. As preterists, we can say with assurance that the events now taking place are NOT a fulfillment of prophecy. We know that all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70, at which time the New Covenant was fully established, making the Kingdom available to all who would believe in Jesus as Savior (Messiah). Some emotionalism is understandable in time of war. However, we need not fear the Great Tribulation or being "left behind" in the Rapture. We know by the time limitations recorded in the New Testament that these things have already occurred, and we are living in the new spiritual promised land.

Speaking of Jews, here is what the scripture says:

    Isaiah 65:15, "And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:"

    Matthew 21:43, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

The above two verses were fulfilled in 70 AD, when the Jews were slayed, the temple burned down, and the Kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to all who believe in Christ.

Other Proof that there is no Jewish Race Today

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, the nation of Israel, after the flesh, was scattered throughout the earth, and lost all tribal relations. This scattering was made immutable due to the fact that all tribal genealogical records were destroyed with the Temple in A.D. 70. The simple fact is that there is no existing Jewish race. Not only the Bible confirms this (as already revealed), but the writings of worldly authorities, including Jewish resources as well. Consider the following quotations:

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973): "The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropocentric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics" (vol. 12, page 1054).

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971): "It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .

"Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many can't be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon" (Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, 1971, vol. 3, p. 50).

Encyclopedia Americana (1986): "Racial and Ethnic Considerations. Some theorists have considered the Jews a distinct race, although this has no factual basis. In every country in which the Jews lived for a considerable time, their physical traits came to approximate those of the indigenous people. Hence the Jews belong to several distinct racial types, ranging, for example, from fair to dark. Among the reasons for this phenomenon are voluntary or involuntary miscegenation and the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 16, p. 71).

Collier's Encyclopedia (1977): "A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they live" (Collier's Encyclopedia, 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).

Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1970): "In 1970 the Israeli Knesset adopted legislation defining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother or a convert" (vol. 14, p. 214).

H.G. Wells: "There can be little doubt that the scattered Phoenicians in Spain and Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, speaking as they did a language closely akin to Hebrew and being deprived of their authentic political rights, became proselytes to Judaism. For phases of vigorous proselytism alternated with phases of exclusive jealousy in Jewish history. On one occasion the Idumeans, being conquered, were all forcibly made Jews. There were Arab tribes who were Jews in the time of Muhammad, and a Turkish people who were mainly Jews in South Russia in the ninth century. Judaism is indeed the reconstructed political ideal of many shattered peoples - mainly Semitic.... The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea" (The Outline of History, p. 505).

John Bray: "Many Christians do not know that the vast majority of so-called Jews in the world today are the Ashkenazim Jews, while the remainder of them are the Sephardim Jews. The Ashkenazim Jews have as their background not the nation of Israel but a country called Khazaria, which country at one time was the largest country in Europe. The settlers of Khazaria were Turks and Huns. In A.D. 740 King Bulan of Khazaria decided to adopt the Judaistic religion for his country. A number of Jews were already living there. So he converted to Judaism, along with all his officials, and whole nation ended up being known as a nation of Jews. In 970, Russia came in and dominated the situation, and the Khazars were scattered, many of them going down into Poland and Lithuania. Where at the dawn of our modern civilization the largest concentration of Jews were found. Today, the largest percentage of so-called Jews in the world have as their background this group of people" (This information is fully documented in detail in John Bray's book, Israel in Bible Prophecy).

Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, Madonna, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism.

Therefore, we can clearly and confidently assert that there is no such thing as a Jewish race, nor ever can there be. Since the fall of Jerusalem, and the scattering of the nation of Israel in the first century, the nation calling itself Israel has consisted of a collection of people from nearly every nation in the world, with no relation to the twelve tribes of the historical nation known as Israel. Any attempts to state that there is, or will ever again be, a race of Israelites are proven to be futile and of no force. There is no Jewish race.

What should a follower of Christ think of Jews?

    Romans 2:28-29, "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Followers of Christ ARE Jews! Followers of Christ have not REPLACED Israel...the followers of Christ ARE Israel. Spiritual Israel.


Final Thoughts

Jews do not practice "Old Testament religion;" they are not almost Christians, lacking only acceptance of the Messiah and the New Testament. They do not worship the true God, not even the "God of the Old Testament" Jesus was quite adamant: If they had believed Moses, they would believe Him. (John 5:46-47) They don't believe the Old Testament either. The religion of Judaism is a Talmudic faith, not Biblical. Those who support, as the majority of premillenialists do, the secular nation of Israel at this time, simply because they are so-called Jews, and claim the premillenial system relies on Israel as a pivotal aspect of itself, give succor to apostates and enemies of Christ, and actually encourage them in their unbelief.

Source:http://ecclesia.org/truth/chosen.html

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Until you atheist/agnostic/areligionist types start learning the differences between Christianity and Judaism, specifically Bible prophecy, you will never fully understand the Jewish question.

[Helphand]

I'm hoping to put up fairly soon Conner's Christ Was Not  A Jew (1936) which goes into this.

Basically the OT patriarchs have not been historically verified in any plausible way, unlike the ancient Egyptian rulers. The OT per Conner was largely if not totally borrowed from other sources ranging from the Egyptian, Sumerian/Babylonian to even an early Greek Play (Book of Job IIRC) - without attribution of course    Anyway I'll leave it to Dr Conner's writing to reply fully in due course.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I'm hoping to put up fairly soon Conner's Christ Was Not  A Jew (1936) which goes into this.

Basically the OT patriarchs have not been historically verified in any plausible way, unlike the ancient Egyptian rulers. The OT per Conner was largely if not totally borrowed from other sources ranging from the Egyptian, Sumerian/Babylonian to even an early Greek Play (Book of Job IIRC) - without attribution of course    Anyway I'll leave it to Dr Conner's writing to reply fully in due course.

This is a tired old theory. Zeitgeist is so cliche.

[kolnidre]

I'm hoping to put up fairly soon Conner's Christ Was Not  A Jew (1936) which goes into this.

Basically the OT patriarchs have not been historically verified in any plausible way, unlike the ancient Egyptian rulers. The OT per Conner was largely if not totally borrowed from other sources ranging from the Egyptian, Sumerian/Babylonian to even an early Greek Play (Book of Job IIRC) - without attribution of course    Anyway I'll leave it to Dr Conner's writing to reply fully in due course.

This is a tired old theory. Zeitgeist is so cliche.

I don't have an opinion on Zeitgeist, which I veiw with suspicion for its attempt to demoralize people, but for just one example isn't Moses basically Sorgon the Great with a bigger following?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I'm hoping to put up fairly soon Conner's Christ Was Not  A Jew (1936) which goes into this.

Basically the OT patriarchs have not been historically verified in any plausible way, unlike the ancient Egyptian rulers. The OT per Conner was largely if not totally borrowed from other sources ranging from the Egyptian, Sumerian/Babylonian to even an early Greek Play (Book of Job IIRC) - without attribution of course    Anyway I'll leave it to Dr Conner's writing to reply fully in due course.

This is a tired old theory. Zeitgeist is so cliche.

I don't have an opinion on Zeitgeist, which I veiw with suspicion for its attempt to demoralize people, but for just one example isn't Moses basically Sorgon the Great with a bigger following?

I'm afraid you are stretching associations beyond their range. Using your theory, everything in existence can be explained away as something else relative. Then where does that leave you? Everything is nothing, and you have chaos and anarchy.

[Christopher Marlowe]

This is a great resource.  It is interesting that I did a similar post at the same time: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11808

This lie about Jews being the chosen, and the misinterpretation of the promise the Abraham are based the Jewish Scofield bible.  

As for the zietgeist claptrap, that video was created by satanists to take advantage of the Truth movement.  

Though they were never actually shown — as most in attendance had seen them several times — Mr. Joseph's two films, "Zeitgeist, the Movie" (released in 2007) and "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (released last fall), were the subtext of the evening: online documentaries that have been watched, he says, by 50 million people around the world.

The former may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an "inside job" perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population, a point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently "moved away from."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/nyreg ... .html?_r=1

This site will offer money to anyone who can prove the anti-Christian claims made in the zeitgeist movie:
http://zeitgeistchallenge.com/

Zeitgeist Movie Reviews: The Truth About Zeitgeist
The following is a growing list of Zeitgeist movie reviews that call into question Zeitgeist's dubious, if not deceptive
method of sourcing, or rather not sourcing its claims in a way that is at all intellectually honest let alone accurate.
These Zeitgeist movie reviews come from various sources in varying backgrounds and all come to the same conclussion,
something stinks about the so called Zeitgeist source material.
Jay Kinney reviews Zeitgeist, the Movie
"Even when quotes or sound bites are attributed to a source, there’s no way to tell if they are quoted correctly or
in context.
Late in the video, there’s a supposed quote from David Rockefeller, which, if genuine, would be an astounding
confession of complicity in mass manipulation. But, of course, the quote is not sourced or dated, which renders it
useless. (The video’s website does feature a Sources page, but a hodge-podge list of books, with no page
numbers cited, is of little value for source verification.)" Jay Kinney reviews Zeitgeist, the Movie - Boing Boing "Zeitgeist"
Online Movie: Part One Refuted©
In the case of Part I of Zeitgeist; the majority of its source material is derived from the New Age author, Acharya S, book, The Christ Conspiracy. The film's producer even writes the following on the source page for Part I: Special thanks to Acharya S for her consultation for this section Acharya S real name is D.M. Murdock. I will endnote examples of how the narrator draws from material contained in the corresponding pages of The Christ Conspiracy. One can find book reviews of The Christ Conspiracy at Answering Acharya S and at Acharya S: Sample Points. Unfortunately, the narrator rarely quotes from primary sources.
An example of a primary source would be samples of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, inscriptions on pottery, religious texts, etc. The Christ Conspiracy, however, is a secondary source and Acharya S fails to identify the primary sources that she relies on. "Zeitgeist" Online Movie: Part One Refuted

[mgt23]

i saw zeitgeist addendum on controversial tv on sky satelliete service in UK. If rupert murdoch is playing it to a mainstream then i smell a rat. zio.

[GordZilla]

i saw zeitgeist addendum on controversial tv on sky satelliete service in UK. If rupert murdoch is playing it to a mainstream then i smell a rat. zio.

Should have smelled a rat about 5 minutes into watching that crap for the first time, but better late then never :-)

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

This is a great resource.  It is interesting that I did a similar post at the same time: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11808

This lie about Jews being the chosen, and the misinterpretation of the promise the Abraham are based the Jewish Scofield bible.  

As for the zietgeist claptrap, that video was created by satanists to take advantage of the Truth movement.  

Though they were never actually shown — as most in attendance had seen them several times — Mr. Joseph's two films, "Zeitgeist, the Movie" (released in 2007) and "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (released last fall), were the subtext of the evening: online documentaries that have been watched, he says, by 50 million people around the world.

Thanks for reminding me.

The Incredible Scofield and His Book - Joseph M. Canfield



http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4685534 ... ._Canfield

Cyrus I. Scofield is the father of Christian Zionism. This is where the present day mess really begins.

Yeah, there are plenty of resources rebutting the Zeitgeist cult. It reminds me of that other shill and chum of Alex Jones, Jordan Maxwell.

[Helphand]

I'm hoping to put up fairly soon Conner's Christ Was Not  A Jew (1936) which goes into this.

Basically the OT patriarchs have not been historically verified in any plausible way, unlike the ancient Egyptian rulers. The OT per Conner was largely if not totally borrowed from other sources ranging from the Egyptian, Sumerian/Babylonian to even an early Greek Play (Book of Job IIRC) - without attribution of course    Anyway I'll leave it to Dr Conner's writing to reply fully in due course.

oops posted in wrong thread last week.. here it is for those who missed that and might be interested:

http://www.4shared.com/document/dbAkNNf1/JacobElonConner-ChristWasNotAJ.html

[pas]

Thank's for the book Helphand.

[pas]

And thank's Mr. Fitzpatrick for the book-torrent.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

And thank's Mr. Fitzpatrick for the book-torrent.

My pleasure. People need to learn where Christian Zionism really comes from...Jews. Scofield was a Masonic Jew.

[ahaze]

Until you atheist/agnostic/areligionist types start learning the differences between Christianity and Judaism, specifically Bible prophecy, you will never fully understand the Jewish question.

I agree and appreciate the elucidation.  To what degree atheist/agnostic/areligious thinkers acknowledge the influence of the Abrahamic faiths I think directly effects capacity to comprehend the control structure we're all struggling under.  Dr. Ashraf Ezzat recently posted the article, "Israel and the authoritarian side of the Bible" providing a complimentary commentary that highlights one of the grotesque features of the slave-germinated belief systems.

Israel and the authoritarian side of the Bible

The point that the God of the Bible was trying to make of the story of the Binding of Isaac, was totally outdated and irrelevant.

Imagine that you are in your old age, and you only have one son whom you love and adore so dearly. But lately you've been having this recurring dream in which you grab a knife and hide it in your briefcase, and then you discreetly take your son to a deserted place, and try to talk him into yielding to your desire to kill him by cutting his throat, because in doing so, you would be obeying God's orders.

I think that on waking up in the next morning from that scary dream you would consider two options;

1.  That the recurring dream is nothing but a dreadful nightmare and you should dismiss it as such.

2. Seeing a psychiatrist, because you will need professional help to get to the bottom of this.

But Abraham- a character failed to be historically validated – didn't think so and neither did we, his nightmare became ours, somehow we bought into this depraved story of the Binding of Isaac, and held it close to our hearts as sacred and true story.

 Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes referred to as the "Abrahamic religions" because of the progenitor role that Abraham plays in their holy books. In both the Jewish tradition and the Quran, he is referred to as "our Father".

Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider him father of the people of Israel. For Jews and Christians this is through his son Isaac, by his wife Sarah; for Muslims, he is a prophet of Islam and the ancestor of Muhammad through his other son Ishmael, born to him by Sarah's handmaiden, Hagar.

In reviewing the Binding of Isaac – in the Judeo-Christian story- or the Binding of Ishmael – in the Islamic story- one gets to clearly discover that the three religions stemmed out of the same narratives and ancestral characters but with some suitable variations.

Some biblical scholars, Jews included, have read the story as a protest against human sacrifice, the significant point being that the angel intervenes to prevent the murder as an obscene act that God, unlike the pagan deities, hates and could never really have intended.

But it is worth mentioning from a historical point of view that all the cultures of the Levant and ancient near east did not know of human sacrifice, the civilization of ancient Near East Empires Around 1350 B.C, Egypt, Babylon, Mitanni, Hittite and Assyria only allowed offerings of food and animals but never humans.

In other words they enjoyed a more elevated and more ethical religions than the Jewish doctrine as far as the offering rituals are concerned. So the point that the God of the Bible was trying to make of the story of the Binding of Isaac, was totally outdated and irrelevant.  

The ancient Egyptian Queen Nefertari is offering bread, fruits and jugs of beer to the Gods.

By the Iron Age, with the associated developments in religion, human sacrifice was becoming less common throughout the Old World, and came to be widely looked down upon as barbaric already in pre-modern times.

"The unexamined life is not worth living" – Socrates

But this barbaric act of sacrificing Isaac/ishmael was considered one of the most revered stories in the three religions, throughout the years no one bothered to question its rationality or doubt its absurdity. Unlike In the Platonic dialogue when Euthyphro is on his way to the court of Athens to attempt to have his father prosecuted and executed. When Socrates hears about this he intercepts him and asks him if that is a pious thing to do? Is it morally correct to try to have your father found guilty and executed? He questions Euthyphro about what being pious is. Euthyphro first tries to say that to be pious/morally correct is what the gods think is good. Socrates asks if something is good because the gods say it is and that makes it good. Or is something good and therefore the gods are pleased with it?

If we are not allowed to examine the rationale behind a lot of the old Bible stories and myths as in the case of Binding Isaac, which clearly points out the fact that humans are at the mercy of an omnipotent God. then we will automatically turn the once true believers of the Bible into mere followers to an authoritarian dogma.

The Bible is full of refuted historical events, a lot of unfulfilled prophecies and innumerable hard to believe-stories, the Binding of Isaac is one of the weirdest and most depraved biblical stories.

Significantly, many people want to argue about whether God exists but almost no one discusses what exactly this God IS. If you believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions then you must believe in a god that runs around getting angry and making bets with devils (Book of Job) and covenants with Jews.

The Abrahamic God- most unlikely of a divinity – acquired human traits, characteristics and imperfections. So instead of becoming the loving God of all creatures and humans, he decided and unjustifiably to be the loving God of the Jews only.

And even more he began to pull some strings and play some politics to safeguard the earthly acquisitions of his people, and he even guaranteed – and that where the bible scribes went too far – that the world would come to a horrible end- End Times – if his chosen people faced the final and ultimate danger of destruction. And that what led some fundamentalist Christians and Zionist Christians to form pro-Israeli organizations like "Christians United for Israel", incorporated in 2006, with Israel Propagandist John Hagee as chairman.

In this way, the Jews-serving bias of the Bible transformed it into an authoritarian dogma, a scripture that delegitimatizes reason as a valid means of dealing with the world. It imposes irrational and biased views and at the same time expects nothing less than the unconditional reverence and obedience on the followers' behalf.

According to The American scholar Erich Fromm (1900–1980), in his book Psychoanalysis and Religion, he defined authoritarian and humanistic religion as a way to understand the tension between ritual perfection and human capabilities.

Humanistic religion, he writes, is centered around man and his strength...Man's aim in humanistic religion is to achieve the greatest strength, not the greatest powerlessness; virtue is self-realization, not obedience. The prevailing mood is that of joy, while the prevailing mood in authoritarian religion is that of sorrow and guilt.  Thus, it is not surprising that the whole of Abrahamic doctrine is based upon this notion of "Guilt", and particularly due to a sin allegedly committed by someone who seemingly never existed outside the boundaries of the Bible.

_http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/13/israel-and-the-authoritarian-side-of-the-bible-4/

[Christopher Marlowe]

There is an excellent essay I read on this subject called:
The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?
A Review of the PBS Documentary:
Jews and Christians: A Journey of Faith
By Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.

It can be found at:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles.htm

But I warn you: It's 41 pages.

Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium: The Old Covenant is Revoked
Before we show what John Paul II actually meant by his use of the phrase "Old Covenant," we need to document where Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium clearly show that the Mosaic covenant has been legally abrogated. There is a good reason why Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1999: "Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded," for it is the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church that the Old Covenant, the Mosaic covenant, as a legal entity, has been abrogated, and it is not applicable, legally, to anyone today, including the Jews. Here are just some of the many statements that teach this truth:
• Hebrews 7:18: "On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness...";
• Hebrews 10:9: "Then he says, 'Behold, I come to do your will.' He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]...";
• 2 Corinthians 3:14: "For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away";
• Hebrews 8:7: "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another";
• Colossians 2:14: "Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross";
• Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: "...the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished...but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross";
• The Catechism of the Council of Trent: "...the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law...";
• Council of Florence: "that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law...although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began";
• Council of Trent: "but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom";
• Cardinal Ratzinger: "Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded" (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
• St. John Chrysostom: "Yet surely Paul's object everywhere is to annul this Law....And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace" (Homily on Romans, 6:12); "And so while no one annuls a man's covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable" (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);
• St. Augustine: "Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God's name: 'Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...' Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit" (Letters, 74, 4);
• Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy...Have you not read...by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: 'Behold, the days come,' says the Lord, 'that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...'" (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Yeah, and it's not like the New Covenant should have taken any of the Jews by surprise. They indeed took heed to the words of the Prophets and recognized Jesus as the Messiah when He came. They instead rejected him and took Satan as their master.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]