To non-EndTimesey C'tians- the significance of the State of Israel...

[jayjay]

@Mehitabel

BTW, everybody knows that Golda really looked like this.

Not to hijack, but SQUEEEEEEEE! I love Tovah Feldshuh! I’d completely forgotten her turn in that play, though.

[Alessan]

@Bippy the Beardless

Well I can’t cite a beleif very well, and my beleif comes more from the lack of seeing a cite to the contrary, and quite possibly lack of knowledge. It just seems unlikely to me that the majority of the tribes of Abraham left the fertile areas of river Jordan. Most often when an area is conquered by outsiders the native population remains and intermarries somewhat with the conquerors. I have seen no evidence that the semetic Arabs living in the regions of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon etc. aren’t descendants of anscestors from the time of Moses and before. I don’t know if the majority of people in the Holy Lands are Semites but I see no reason to susspect that Semites haven’t been a major population in that area throughout recorded history.

I understand.

The Roman provence of Judaea was the scene of some horrific conflict in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. The Empire faced two of its fiercests revolts, and its response was, well, genocidal:

From here and here:

Estimates of the death toll range from 600,000 to 1,300,000 Jews: there was “no room for crosses and no crosses for the bodies”. Over 100,000 died during the siege, and almost 100,000 were taken to Rome as slaves. Many fled to areas around the Mediterranean.

…

According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed.

I don’t have the exact numbers for the Jewish population of the country at the time, but considering how small a land we’re taking about, even if the figures are exaggerated, I think we can assume that a severe depopulation took place. if you kill a million or two people over a course of 65 years in a land the size of New Jersey, you’ll probably see a drop in the population level. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the country - a backwater province - stood more or less empty for the following few centuries, until people from surrounding lands slowly settled there. Nture abhors a vacuum, and humans are always migrating.

And yes, there were other Semitic people in the Middle East - in fact, all of the Middle East and much of North Africa had been Semitic just about forever. The Phoenicians and their descendants the Carthagenians spoke a language very similar to Hebrew (for instance, the word “Hispania” comes from the Hebrew “Ee Shfania” - Island of Rabbits); so did the Aramaic people of Syria and the inhabitants of Arabia. The fact that the later inhabitants of the country were Semitic does not mean that they were descended from Jews.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

@Alessan

I understand.
The fact that the later inhabitants of the country were Semitic does not mean that they were descended from Jews.

Thank you very much. If you or anyone else would be so kind, do you have a good cite where I could learn more clearly the distinction between Semitic and of Jewish descent?

[Guinastasia]

@Siege

Wasn’t one of the goals of the Crusades that of taking back Israel so that Christ would return? I seem to recall that back then if Jerusalem wound up in Christian, rather than Jewish hands, that would be a sign of Christ’s imminent return.

Wasn’t the Holy Land being occupied by the Muslims at that time, not the Jews?

[Cardinal]

@FriarTed

Many C’tians who view the End Times as near put a lot of emphasis on the 1948 founding of the State of Israel & its 1967 retaking of Jerusalem as being major signs (tho the JW’s & 7th Day Adventists are exceptions).
For the non-EndTimesey C’tians here, how do you regard the spiritual significance of the regathering of the Jews to their ancient land?

I grew up in a very conservative Protestant home. This kind of thing was told to me many times.

When I finally found out the bibilical basis of these interpretations, I was horrified and felt betrayed. I can’t quote you the verses used, but it had been presented to me before as something clearly from the Bible. In fact, it was one of the most flimsy, arguable things I’d ever heard.

I don’t believe that, or anything else that I can’t back up at a moment’s notice any more.

[amarinth]

@Cardinal

I grew up in a very conservative Protestant home. This kind of thing was told to me many times.

I grew up in a semi-conservative, evangelical church. This sort of thing wasn’t told to me directly (that I remember) but it was there around the fringes. (Not a main emphasis of the church itself. That Christ will return was, the details, not so much. But there were people who would lay pamphlets around, and I did (and still will) read almost anything.)

Of course, then, the antiChrist/Beast were definitely going to come from the USSR. All the signs were there!!! Really!!! And 1993 was the big year to watch out for. Obviously, that didn’t work out. In the same vein, I recently heard a talk saying that it would most certainly be the European Union. This time, the sign was that the Euro had a picture of a woman riding a beast! How could they be clearer. (Went home, started looking at currency, and finally found the 1 out of 120 coins that it might have been talking about (not on the paper Euro at all) and thought “that’s not the whore of Babylon, that’s Europa. And she’s on a cow.” When I think of the Beast, I’m not picturing Bessie.)

To get directly back to the OP, I am loathe to read spiritual significance into anything. Yeah, it may be extremely important. It might not. I figure I’ll find out sooner or later. In the meantime, there are hungry people to feed, homeless people to shelter, lonely people to visit, and God to praise and I’d rather put my focus and energy there.

[jayjay]

@amarinth

“that’s not the whore of Babylon, that’s Europa. And she’s on a cow.” When I think of the Beast, I’m not picturing Bessie.)

Yes, but that cow is ZEUS! An alien, false god and demon intent on dragging the entire Greek world to Hell!

Okay, I got nothing…

[Siege]

@Guinastasia

@Siege

Wasn’t one of the goals of the Crusades that of taking back Israel so that Christ would return? I seem to recall that back then if Jerusalem wound up in Christian, rather than Jewish hands, that would be a sign of Christ’s imminent return.

Wasn’t the Holy Land being occupied by the Muslims at that time, not the Jews?

The Holy Land was being occupied by the Muslims. I think the idea was to get it back into the hands of God’s Chosen People who were the Christians, according to the mindset of the time, not the Jews. Christ’s death on the cross transferred the title “God’s Chosen People” to the Christians, if I understand the mindset. Then again, my history has been a bit dodgy, so I could be wrong.

CJ