First of all, Joe Ortiz is a friend of mine. Some people consider him impossible to converse with. I don't see it that way. When I have had something to say to Joe that he may not have known, I've found him receptive.
Joe has had a recent back and forth with Cris D. Putnam. During the process since Cris posted on his blog about it, I've had an opportunity to weigh in on it.
First, here's Joe's latest blog post. It will open in a new tab so you may easily comment here: The End Times Passover: The Connection between the Scofield Bible, Oxford Publishing & The House of Rothschild ~.
Now, rather than write a great deal of text here, I'm just going to supply you with some links that I trust will be self-explanatory.
As you will recall from Joe's post (written by one "Robert Singer") mentions that the offending quote from Scofield's Reference Bible is from the 1967 version. Scofield died in 1921. The earlier versions 1909 and 1917 did not contain that language ("A Curse Laid Upon Those Who Persecute the Jews").
For your convenience: Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)
Here's the 1967 version edited by Zionists long after Scofield's actual versions: New Scofield Reference Bible: C. I. Scofield D.D., Editor
Scofield Notes: p.19 "The Abrahamic Covenant"
Referenced to Genesis 12:1
Note the part of the title that says "New" and also that it says "C. I. Scofield D.D., Editor," even though he was dead and did not and would not necessarily have approved any of the changes from his 1917 version that were made for the 1967 so-called edition. I don't know the degree to which the 1967 version makes that clear.
This next one is simply to say that while I do not agree with Freemasonry, Albert Pike did not write the letter attributed to him by Robert Singer: Taxil hoax.
After that, there is the age-old Ashkenazi/Khazar theory put forth most recently by one "Shlomo Sand": Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.
Also, even though the Wikipedia often has its faults, the current version (last accessed Jan. 6, 2012) of this article on Dispensationalism is fairly reasonable.
Here's perhaps a slight deviation but nevertheless something I believe worth considering: Gap creationism.
Here's Cris's blog post against Joe Ortiz: Joe Ortiz Claims Jesus Was Not a Jew!
Here are some quotes from Scofield (1917):
Genesis 11:10 KJV
(10) These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
generations of Shem
Genesis 11. and 12. mark an important turning point in the divine dealing. Heretofore the history has been that of the whole Adamic race. There has been neither Jew nor Gentile; all have been one in "the first man Adam." Henceforth, in the Scripture record, humanity must be thought of as a vast stream from which God, in the call of Abram and the creation of the nation of Israel, has but drawn off a slender rill, through which He may at last purify the great river itself. Israel was called to be a witness to the unity of God in the midst of universal idolatry (Deu_6:4); (Isa_43:10-12) to illustrate the blessedness of serving the true God (Deu_33:26-29) to receive and preserve the divine revelations; (Rom_3:1); (Rom_3:2); (Deu_4:5-8) and to produce the messiah; (Gen_3:15); (Gen_21:12); (Gen_28:10); (Gen_28:14); (Gen_49:10); (2Sa_7:16); (2Sa_7:17); (Isa_4:3); (Isa_4:4); (Mat_1:1).
The reader of scripture should hold firmly in mind:
(1) that from Gen 12. to (Mat_12:45) the Scriptures have primarily in view Israel, the little rill, not the great Gentile river; though again and again the universality of the ultimate divine intent breaks into view (for example; (Gen_12:3); (Isa_2:2); (Isa_2:4); (Isa_5:26); (Isa_9:1-2); (Isa_11:10-12); (Isa_42:1-6); (Isa_49:6); (Isa_49:12); (Isa_52:15); (Isa_54:3); (Isa_55:5); (Isa_60:3); (Isa_60:5); (Isa_60:11-16); (Isa_61:6); (Isa_61:9); (Isa_62:2); (Isa_66:12); (Isa_66:18); (Isa_66:19); (Jer_16:19); (Joe_3:9); (Joe_3:10); (Mal_1:11) Ro 9. 10. 11. (Gal_3:8-14).
(2) that the human race, henceforth called Gentile in distinction from Israel, goes on under the Adamic and Noahic covenants; and that for the race (outside Israel) the dispensations of Conscience and of Human government continue. The moral history of the great Gentile world is told in (Rom_1:21-32) and its moral accountability in (Rom_2:1-16). Conscience never acquits: it either "accuses" or "excuses." Where the law is known to the Gentiles it is to them, as to Israel, "a ministration of death," a "curse"; (Rom_3:19); (Rom_3:20); (Rom_7:9-10); (2Co_3:7); (Gal_3:10). A wholly new responsibility arises when either Jew or Gentile knows the Gospel; (Joh_3:18); (Joh_3:19); (Joh_3:36); (Joh_15:22-24); (Joh_16:9); (1Jo_5:9-12).
Genesis 12:1 KJV
(1) Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Now the Lord
The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant (See Scofield) - (Gen_15:18) made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law (Exo_19:8). Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage (Exo_19:4) but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law. The Dispensation of Promise extends from (Gen_12:1) to (Exo_19:8); and was exclusively Israelitish. The dispensation must be distinguished from the covenant. The former is a mode of testing; the latter is everlasting because unconditional. The law did not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal_3:15-18) but was an intermediate disciplinary dealing "till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made"; (Gal_3:19-29); (Gal_4:1-7). Only the dispensation, as a testing of Israel, ended at the giving of the law.
The Abrahamic Covenant as formed (Gen_12:1-4) and confirmed; (Gen_13:14-17); (Gen_15:1-7); (Gen_17:1-8) is in seven distinct parts:
(1) "I will make of thee a great nation." Fulfilled in a threefold way:
(a) In a natural posterity -- "as the dust of the earth (Gen_13:16); (Joh_8:37); namely, the Hebrew people.
(b) In a spiritual posterity -- "look now toward heaven . . . so shall thy seed be" (Joh_8:39); (Rom_4:16-17); (Rom_9:7-8); (Gal_3:6); (Gal_3:7); (Gal_3:29) namely, all men of faith, whether Jew or Gentile.
(c) fulfilled also through Ishmael (Gen_17:18-20).
(2) "I will bless thee." Fulfilled in two ways:
(a) temporally (Gen_13:14); (Gen_13:15); (Gen_13:17); (Gen_15:18); (Gen_24:34-35)
(b) spiritually; (Gen_15:6); (Joh_8:56).
(3) "And make thy name great." Abraham's is one of the universal names.
(4) "And thou shalt be a blessing" (Gal_3:13); (Gal_3:14).
(5) "I will bless them that bless thee." In fulfilment closely related to the next clause.
(6) "And curse him that curseth thee." Wonderfully fulfilled in the history of the dispersion. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew -- well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle (Deu_30:7); (Isa_14:1); (Joe_3:1-8); (Mic_5:7-9); (Hag_2:22); (Zec_14:1-3); (Mat_25:40); (Mat_25:45). [emphasis added]
(7) "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This is the great evangelic promise fulfilled in Abraham's Seed, Christ (Gal_3:16); (Joh_8:56-58).
It brings into greater definiteness the promise of the Adamic Covenant concerning the Seed of the woman (Gen_3:15).
NOTE. -- The gift of the land is modified by prophecies of three dispossessions and restorations (Gen_15:13); (Gen_15:14); (Gen_15:16); (Jer_25:11); (Jer_25:12); (Deu_28:62-65); (Deu_30:1-3). Two dispossessions and restorations have been accomplished. Israel is now in the third dispersion, from which she will be restored at the return of the Lord as King under the Davidic Covenant; (Deu_30:3); (Jer_23:5-8); (Eze_37:21-25); (Luk_1:30-33); (Act_15:14-17).
Lastly, here's an article that addresses the statement made by Cris in his post ("...distinctions between classic, revised, and progressive dispensationalism...."):
Dispensationalism in Transition
Challenging Traditional Dispensationalism's "Code of Silence"
Â© Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., 1997, February 1997
OUT WITH THE OLD; IN WITH THE NEW: INTRODUCING THE MAJOR PLAYERS IN DISPENSATIONAL EVOLUTION
All of that said, I tell you I agree with Joe's underlying theme that Zionism is evil, not supported by Jesus, and will fail. I agree with Joe that so-called Christian-Zionism is flat-out wrong.
I am not a Dispensationalist. I believe in dispensations by God but not in the Fundamentalists' Dispensationalism regardless of the type: classic, revised, or even progressive. I do not subscribe to the Gap Theory. I do not subscribe to the literal interpretation of the 6 days of creation, including the Day-Age literal interpretation. I do agree with it on a figurative basis. I do not believe in the "Rapture." I do not believe that the Adam of the Bible was created around 4004 BC or that all of the people of the world came only from those who were on Noah's Ark and coming after 4004 BC. I don't believe that all the species of the earth were on board Noah's Ark either, even though Jesus specifically mentions Noah. I don't find it irreconcilable. Jesus also mentions Abel, Adam's son. He mentions Jonah as well. What Jesus doesn't due is show himself a literalist in the most capital-F Fundamentalist sense. In fact, he shows himself much the figurativist via his many beautiful and wonderful and highly instructive parables, which most certainly do impart truth. I believe theistic evolution is possible (ring species today hint at it strongly as has the fossil record for many, many decades if not centuries now) but also that evolution would not overturn the Gospel message in any case, including the miracles therein and many miracles in the Bible before Jesus's human manifestation.
Exactly where to draw the line between the literal and figurative is something I do not know but believe God will not hold that against me. Even Jesus didn't know everything while he was manifest in the flesh and before he was perfected and went back to God from here. If you think all of this makes me an idiot, I'm not concerned for myself on account of that.
Update: At this point, Cris Putnam is no brother in Christ. He framed Joe Ortiz and thought he'd get away with it. He refused to say whether he's a Zionist. He refused to apologize for calling Joe and Nathaniel racists /ethnic bigots. He also refused to acknowledge the spiritual meaning of terms, including "Jew."
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)