Comment by shakna | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shakna | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Whilst I've definitely got the impression, that _most_ people think of it as a shared heritage, I have now and then had a few people quoting the same prophecy from Zechariah as their reasoning.

> And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it - Zechariah 12:3

The (mis-)interpretation being that for the return of God to occur, the existence of Jerusalem is a pre-requisite. It can't disappear, again. So for that to happen, we should protect Israel, who will protect the city. We should especially protect them because the world will gather against them.

The logic has some major flaws to it, and can be easily worked around, but I've heard it a few times.

Possibly closer to the mark in terms of scripture is Ezekiel 38, which specifies that the Jews are to have returned/gathered from exile/dispersion and be living in peace ("unwalled cities") before an invasion/looting from the north. Of course, it only specifies the movement of peoples, not the political configuration of the land.

The same groups of people tend to apply that one to the Yom Kippur war, and treat it as already fulfilled. The thing about Jerusalem having to remain as a heavy stone is more what inspires them to defend it.

> for the return of God to occur, the existence of Jerusalem is a pre-requisite.

isn't it amusing how humans think their deity isn't powerful enough so they have to make things possible for him?

This is less a case of "powerful enough" and more that Christianity upholds that God is changeable, and expects people to _act_ and not merely trust that he will do everything for him. (Certain prosperity sects excluded.)

There are several times when significant figures such as Moses, David, Jeremiah, and so on, negotiate a new outcome with their God. There are also other times that their God refuses to act, because the faithless have fallen away.

They "wandered around in the desert", a rather small patch of desert, mind you, because of a lack of faith. The 40-ish years in the desert, to age out those who failed in their duty, rather than to enter into their "Promised Land". Moses was also forbidden from entering Cana'an, because he tried to act on his own, instead of in tandem with his god.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com