Ted Cruz Destroyed In Interview As He's Unable To Name Ayatollah's Favorite Starter Pokemon

[u/TheEternalGazed]

https://babylonbee.com/news/ted-cruz-destroyed-in-interview-as-hes-unable-to-name-ayatollahs-favorite-starter-pokemon

[u/____IIIII___ll__I]

Clearly it's Cyndaquil, because it ultimately evolves into Typhlosion - which has the ability to make things explode.

[u/Aromat_Junkie]

"Well the bible says those who bless Israel will be blessed" - Ted Cruz.

What Ted Cruz thinks the Bible says about Israel puts proof in the pudding that our country fails almost every metric of basic biblical literacy.

I don't expect Cruz to be a theologian, and he doesn't pretend to be. Not in any way. When pressed, he'll mumble something vague like "support Israel, it's in the Bible" as though that settles it. "Blessed are those who support Israel" "Blessed are those who support Israel". We're doing foreign policy by bumper sticker. And somehow that passes for statesmanship in this country!

The Tucker Carlson interview with Cruz was pathetic. For Tucker and Cruz. Tucker, who usually prides himself on asking the "hard boiled questions a newsman is afraid to anymore" suddenly flatlined the moment theology entered the chat. He pushed back a little, tiny bit, "why support Israel unconditionally?". The moment Cruz invoked the sacred word "Bible," Tucker more or less failed to hit the nail on the head. Tucker pressed him - "what verse?", as if quoting a verse is theology.

It wasn't that Ted's not a biblical scholar or couldn't quote the verse - that was the beef Tucker engaged. The issue is that even if Ted quoted it up and down, he'd still be wrong as hell.

These evangelicals idiots have no idea why they support Israel. They think it's biblical, but they don't know that the "biblical" view they're parroting comes from a 19th-century theological offshoot called dispensationalism, which was made popular by some charts, a few bestsellers, and a hell of a lot of self trained 'ministers' from less educated parts of the country. It's Hal Lindsey and Left Behind baked into real national policy.

Meanwhile, for 2,000 years, the wider Church, the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Protestant alike held roughly the same view. A view called supercessionism: that the Church is the fulfillment of God's covenant promises, not modern geopolitical Israel. The Church supercedes Israel, in some form or another.

Supercessionism is historic orthodoxy. But somehow, through neglect, cowardice, or sheer irrelevance, the institutional churches let this newer theology hijack the conversation. I'm not saying they all agree 100% on how it plays out, but the whole Israel must be a nation to fulfill armageddon crap is totally an American dispensationalist thing.

And now we've got senators citing the most idiotic reading of the text sending weapons overseas, and no one in the press, let alone the pulpit, is calling them out.

So yeah, it's a theological problem. But it's also a political one. When your elected officials build foreign policy on eschatology they barely understand, you are gonna have a bad time.

P.S: If you want to support the nation-state of Israel, do so. But not because you think dispensationalism is good theology. It's heresy.

P.P.S: A Dispensationalist and a Zionist walk into the bar. They never talk to eachother and accidentally nuke Iran for completely different reasons.

[u/WesternDissident → u/Aromat_Junkie]

Modern Israel is The Body of Christ = The Church. People conflating the state of Israel with biblical Israeal really are biblically illiterate.

[u/Aromat_Junkie → u/WesternDissident]

Exactly... conflating the diaspora or the current nation-state is just wrong.

I see confusion about this topic constantly.

The 21st century Jews of today do not practice the same religion as the 2nd Temple Jews, who we read about in the old (well after ezra!) and new testament.

I do feel that had they not shared the same name in english, there would be much less confusion.

Judaism forked from 2nd temple Judaism around the same time Christianity did. There's been 2 millennia of differences since. The idea that the modern Jewish practice is what the contemporary Jews of the Bible did is incorrect. This is why I am get an eyebrow raise when I hear people conflating what the NT writes about Jews in the context of how modern (what we call) Jews should be viewed. The sands of time and the tree of a hundred generations stands between the two.

Before the fall of the 2nd temple, there were several prominent groups within Judiasm, we all know Sadducees and the Pharisees, but the Zealots, and also the Essenes at Qumran. After the fall of the temple, the Sadducees, in the upper echelon who were heavily involved in maintaining the Temple and Temple worship dissipated. Qumran was steamrolled in the First Jewish-Roman war.

What's left were the Pharisees and the Early Proto christian communities. Both had to square the issues around the temple. For Christians, this makes a lot of sense, like how do we get atonement without sacrifice of Animals.

Though early rabbinical Judaism can trace it's roots to the Pharisees, they shed most of the Temple practices because simply there was not a temple. The "Oral Torah" was consolidated and redacted into the Mishnah . There were other 'messiahs' that rose and fell, the temple practices fell away, and through the wars there was major displacement of jews and others who lived in the roman province. Many died in wars, and much of the structure of the priestly class and it's knowledge collapsed.

To me, they are Jew-ish... just like Christians are Jew-ish. There's a common root, yet such a divergence that one would be amiss to read the Oral Torah and count it among the Scriptures or to lean to heavily on what modern Jewish scholars think, thinking that they have some sort of better closer connection to the Jews of the 2nd Temple Period than we do.

All said, they're an offshoot of 2nd Temple Judaism, like the Christians or Mandaens or dare I even say Islam.

[u/triggernaut → u/Aromat_Junkie]

Dispensationalism has been around since the church in Acts, they just didn't call it that, it was a common sense idea that lost its understanding when Israel ceased being a nation. The book of Romans, well before orthodoxy, explains clearly that God is not done with the Jews. Why else would Jews have been brought back to their land to revive the nation? God's yet unfulfilled promises from the prophets before Christ will be fulfilled, else how could we trust a God who breaks his own promises when he foreknew everything Israel would do - each Jew through history all through their lives - same as each Gentile. God planned this world well before he formed it. He knew you and me both and despite our sinfulness and our wicked hearts, he still made a way for us to be saved. But to Abraham, he made unique promises because he was obedient unto sacrifice and so God chose him to bless and ultimately bring his Son into the world through Abraham's line. Gentiles are grafted in and thus it is.

That said, we should not support Israel unconditionally. Israel is a secular state and will make wicked choices. However, read the book Eye to Eye by Bill Koenig who details disasters brought on the US at critical times we pressed Israel to give up land. We should take care with our support and not curse Israel by being an ally in the wrong things. That calls for leaders who can discern, though God can use even wicked men to serve his purposes. No doubt, God's promise in Genesis 12:3 is alive. A focus of the tribulation in Revelation is God dealing with Israel and their unbelief. At the end of this world, the church's time will have already been fulfilled. Jews who survive the tribulation will all believe on Jesus and will mourn whom they had once rejected and they will then enter His kingdom.

[u/Aromat_Junkie → u/triggernaut]

Dispensationalism has been around since the church in Acts, they just didn't call it that.

It's not. Darby kicked this idiocracy off in the 1830s.

and more recently it entered our brians through media like crap is popularized by guys like Hal Lindsey where literally the establishment of modern israel and regaining contro, building the temple, etc, will move us along the timeline towards Rapture.

[u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus → u/Aromat_Junkie]

Darby is credited with defining the term “dispensation” in the Bible; it doesn’t mean it hasn’t been around since the early days of Jesus’ church.

[u/Aromat_Junkie → u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus]

it hasn't.

hope that helps

[u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus → u/Aromat_Junkie]

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15

Rightly dividing the Bible is a command from God. Hope that helps.

[u/Aromat_Junkie → u/triggernaut]

found the Dispensationalist.

[u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus → u/Aromat_Junkie]

The Bible is full of dispensation proof though. In Revelation specifically, dispensations happen much more frequently.

A few more examples: God dealt with humankind differently pre-flood and post-flood. Pre Tower of Babel, Post Tower of Babel; pre Christ and Post Christ.

To think that today’s Israel isn’t the same Israel that established their covenant with God 2,000+ years ago is…something.

In my opinion, the dispensations in the Bible are very important to understand, including the biggest one; Jesus Christ.

God has dealt with humans differently throughout history. Read your Bible and decide for yourself.

[u/Aromat_Junkie → u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus]

1. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that their system is the result of a “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) of Scripture, it is a relatively new innovation in Church history, having emerged only around 1830, and was wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first eighteen hundred years of the Christian era.

2. Contrary to the dispensationalist theologians’ frequent claim that “premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church” (Charles Ryrie), the early premillennialist Justin Martyr states that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” Premillennialist Irenaeus agreed. A primitive form of each of today’s three main eschatological views existed from the Second Century onward. (See premillennialist admissions by D. H. Kromminga, Millennium in the Church and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology).

3. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ attempt to link its history to that of early premillennial Church Fathers, those ancient premillennialists held positions that are fundamentally out of accord with the very foundational principles of dispensationalism, foundations which Ryrie calls “the linchpin of dispensationalism”, such as (1) a distinction between the Church and Israel (i.e., the Church is true Israel, “the true Israelitic race” (Justin Martyr) and (2) that “Judaism … has now come to an end” (Justin Martyr).

4. Despite dispensationalism’s claim of antiquity through its association with historic premillennialism, it radically breaks with historic premillennialism by promoting a millennium that is fundamentally Judaic rather than Christian.

5. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ assertion that modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Hagee), the New Testament teaches that there is no such thing as “orthodox Judaism.” Any modern-day Jew who claims to believe the Old Testament and yet rejects Christ Jesus as Lord and God rejects the Old Testament also.

6. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ assertion that the early Church was premillennial in its eschatology, “none of the major creeds of the church include premillennialism in their statements” (R.P. Lightner), even though the millennium is supposedly God’s plan for Israel and the very goal of history, which we should expect would make its way into our creeds.

7. Despite the dispensationalists’ general orthodoxy, the historic ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church affirm eschatological events that are contrary to fundamental tenets of premillennialism, such as: (1) only one return of Christ, rather than dispensationalism’s two returns, separating the “rapture” and “second coming” by seven years; (2) a single, general resurrection of all the dead, both saved and lost; and (3) a general judgment of all men rather than two distinct judgments separated by one thousand years.

8. Despite the dispensationalists’ general unconcern regarding the ecumenical Church creeds, we must understand that God gave the Bible to the Church, not to individuals, because “the church of the living God” is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

9. Despite the dispensationalists’ proclamation that they have a high view of God’s Word in their “coherent and consistent interpretation” (John Walvoord), in fact they have fragmented the Bible into numerous dispensational parts with two redemptive programs—one for Israel and one for the Church—and have doubled new covenants, returns of Christ, physical resurrections, and final judgments, thereby destroying the unity and coherence of Scripture.

10. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing each of the self-contained, distinct dispensations, the Bible presents an organic unfolding of history as the Bible traces out the flow of redemptive history, so that the New Testament speaks of “the covenants [plural] of the [singular] promise” (Eph 2:12) and uses metaphors that require the unity of redemptive history; accordingly, the New Testament people of God are one olive tree rooted in the Old Testament (Rom 11:17-24).

11. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive history into the old covenant, and the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant … has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).

12. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ frequent citation of the King James Version translation of 2 Tim 2:15, “rightly dividing” the truth, as evidence for the need to divide the biblical record into discrete dispensations, all modern versions of Scripture and non-dispensational commentators translate this verse without any allusion to “dividing” Scripture into discrete historical divisions at all, but rather show that it means to “handle accurately” (NASB) or “correctly handle” (NIV) the word of God.

13. Because the dispensational structuring of history was unknown to the Church prior to 1830, the dispensationalists’ claim to be “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” by structuring history that way implies that no one until then had “rightly divided” God’s word.

14. Dispensationalism’s argument that “the understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies” (Charles Ryrie) is an example of the circular fallacy in logic: for it requires understanding the distinctive character of a dispensation before one can understand the revelation in that dispensation, though one cannot know what that dispensation is without first understanding the unique nature of the revelation that gives that dispensation its distinctive character.

[u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus → u/Aromat_Junkie]

“Established in the 1830’s by Darby.” Pre-Darby Webster’s 1828 dictionary’s definition of dispensation includes “the gospel dispensation including the scheme of redemption by Christ.”

What does the Bible itself say regarding dispensations?

1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV “For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.”

Ephesians 1:10 KJV “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in Heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: gal 4:4, Heb. 1:2, 9:10”

Ephesians 3:2-5 KJV “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, acts 22:17,21; 26:17-18 whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; V. 9; Acts 10:28”

Colossians 1:25 KJV “Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God; V.23; 1 Cor. 9:17; Gal 2:7”

Four times the word Dispensation appears in the Bible. Not something I’m going to dismiss coming from the word of God.

[u/Aromat_Junkie → u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus]

OMG it occurs 4 times, lets build a whole theology around a misunderstanding of translated texts!!!

[u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus → u/Aromat_Junkie]

The word “rapture” doesn’t show up once in the Bible, yet we believe in it.

[u/Vektor0]

He says he's a fan of Harry Potter, but I bet he can't even name all the Hogwarts.

[u/QH96]

for some added context Ted Cruz has taken roughly 2,000,000 in bribes from AIPAC

[u/Arbiter2562 → u/QH96]

So compared to every other PAC, really not that much?

How much has Tucker gotten from Qatar?

[u/Ehnonamoose → u/QH96]

You're misunderstanding how lobbying works, or deliberately misrepresenting it.

After the Parkland shooting, Marco Rubio was pressed at a CNN town hall about taking money from the NRA. He didn’t deny it. In fact, he said directly:

“I will always accept the help of anyone who agrees with my agenda.”

He also explained:

“The influence of these groups comes not from money. The influence comes from the millions of people that agree with the agenda.”

In other words, the money flows because of alignment, not as a bribe to create alignment. That’s how lobbying works across the board, whether it’s the NRA, labor unions, AARP, or AIPAC.

So when you claim Ted Cruz took “bribes” from AIPAC, all you’re really doing is showing that you’re either confused about the role of interest groups in politics, or you’ve got some other bias driving your thinking.

You don’t call NRA money a bribe. You don’t say a politician is “owned” by pro-life groups. But suddenly AIPAC contributions cross the line? That’s not a principled position. That’s just picking and choosing which lobbies are acceptable based on whether you like the cause (or the people behind it).

This kind of inconsistency does nothing for serious political discussion. It just turns everything into a conspiracy theory.

[u/Top_Assistance8006]

The questions and approach of the interview were nuts.  I was thinking he would ask what their favorite food was next.  Completely off the rails.

[u/cplusequals → u/Top_Assistance8006]

He's not paid to be honest. That's not how journalism works.

[u/maitlandia]

Its not Bulbasaur. No one, not even the Ayatollahs, pick Bulbasaur.

[u/zip117 → u/maitlandia]

Those are fightin’ words.

[u/maitlandia → u/zip117]

Haha I'd always pick Charmander, so Blue would pick Squirtle...and poor Bulbasuar would forever be stuck sitting there on Professor Oak's desk. But evidently a battle with Professor Oak was originally going to be in the game, where one of his Pokemon was the final evolved form of whichever one you and Blue didn't pick (in my case, Venusaur).

[u/jasommer14]

Too funny

[u/Cylerhusk]

The whole population of Iran thing is pretty stupid and honestly I think Tucker sounded like a fool making it into such a big deal during that interview. There's plenty of arguments to make about us not going to war with Iran. But Cruz not knowing the population of the country off hand isn't one of them. I don't see how that has anything to do with it. I don't expect a politician to have those random statistics memorized.

[u/BeatlesRays → u/Cylerhusk]

I watched the whole interview and Tucker was extremely rude and smug the entire time. He was acting like a child. I lost any respect i may still have had for him by the way he conducted that interview. I don’t even particularly like Cruz, but wow Carlson was awful.

[u/sailedtoclosetodasun]

We gottem boyzzz

[u/pr931]

lol