Jews and Muslims end times discussion

[Douggg]

I watched this video as a spinoff from watching the video in the Rapture thread started by Purple Hyacinth.

As I am watching this, I am thinking what is going on in the muslim guys' head is that the Jews will all have been converted to Islam, when the Mahdi comes (but he is not letting on that in the video). And that the muslim Mahdi will be king over them (the Jews).

The Mahdi is not the messiah in Islam, but the muslim guy is saying that. The muslims believe that Isa (their version of Jesus) is coming back to rescue the Mahdi and his followers, when the dajjal the muslim version of the Antichrist is getting the better of them in battle. Of course, he mentioned nothing of that in the discussion.

What I would have liked to asked them - is the messiah's religion going to be Islam or Judaism?

What is amazing to me is that the muslim guy says at minute 13:25, that to live together in peace first step is Egypt, Turkey, Israel, and Palestine unite. After that the participation of Iran, Pakistan, and other countries, with the participation of Russia! He says we will form the sea of friendship.

Sounds to me like the formation of Gog/Magog when they decide Israel is not playing ball in that alliance - so they attack them.

At the start of the video, they are both saying that King Messiah leads them in the 7 years of burning the weapons of war in Ezekiel 39. Neither of them commented on who Gog/Magog was. The Rabbi's were saying that the messiah, the King of Israel will reign during those 7 years as the implements of war are being burned up - of course they aren't considering that their perceived King messiah will be the Antichrist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xniv82QRdDg

 

[Interplanner]

they wouldn't know what an AC was, would they, Doug, because that is determined by knowing Messiah as the apostles taught. that is why they would be attracted to a King Messiah, which is far as I know, is the AC as the apostles taught. I have been saying this in debating Messiah v. Maschiach. the mistakes of the 1st century could return, couldn't they?

 

[Douggg]

they wouldn't know what an AC was, would they, Doug, because that is determined by knowing Messiah as the apostles taught. that is why they would be attracted to a King Messiah, which is far as I know, is the AC as the apostles taught. I have been saying this in debating Messiah v. Maschiach. the mistakes of the 1st century could return, couldn't they?

If you are saying that the Jews' thinking of the maschiach as someone who would fight the battles of God in defending Israel - that being the reason why they latched onto persons like Simon bar Kochba... making the same mistake with "the" Antichrist of the end times, then yes I can agree to that.

The Jews thinking is actually biblical, but they don't accept that the maschiach will be anything other than a man-king. Which I have argued with them that their expected man-king maschiach coming to the rescue is nowhere to be found in any of their bible's end times passages. It is always the Lord who comes to their rescue in those passages - such as in Zechariah 14. The Lord of course is the Lord Jesus Christ, the true messiah, Lord, King, and Savior from our sins.

Doug

 

[Interplanner]

Doug wrote:
It is always the Lord who comes to their rescue in those passages

Gothcha. You do realize you've been arguing the opposite all this time? You've always been saying the man-king is all there is to Jewish eschatology, to maschiach.

 

[Douggg]

Doug wrote:
It is always the Lord who comes to their rescue in those passages

Gothcha. You do realize you've been arguing the opposite all this time? You've always been saying the man-king is all there is to Jewish eschatology, to maschiach.

You must be misunderstanding something. The Jews (Judaism) in their eschatology believe the maschiach to be a man-king, not diety. I was arguing with the Jews (Judaism) over at MessiahTruth.com is that in their scriptures, there are no end times passages of a man-king maschiach fighting such battles. I was arguing that in the text, it is the Lord who came to their rescue. The point I was making is when it says Lord - it is talking about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Their counter was that in Judaism, the maschiach doesn't carry as much weight as God, so that is why God is mentioned but not their man-king maschiach.


I have not reversed anything of what I have been saying in discussions with you at this site.


Doug

 

[Interplanner]

You have been saying that before the Res, the Jewish understanding (and therefore the disciples) was the maschiach. A man-king who would be able to set up a Davidic kingdom. I know that was debated. I think you even said that was the offer of the 'gospel' of the kingdom, so we had the debate about the Gospel. Because it is not a gospel about a kingdom but the Gospel that belongs to the kingdom of God which did come.

But also, even what you are saying about how he does not figure as greatly as God is saying what I am saying. The zealots and the apocalyptic literature in the NT background (DSS, War Scroll, War of Sons of Light against Sons of Darkness, etc) have this figure they are expecting. Very close to God but definitely human. This obviously led to the craze for God to intervene as the zealots revolted, to a belief that he would 'emerge' from among them.

But this (zealot and apocalyptic belief) was not the theme that was said by the NT to be there the whole time, even if it used agressive terms like the 'arm of salvation' or 'horn of strength' (Lk 1), because it was trying to say that these terms always did have to do with salvation from sins, which in turn did have some practical results about the 'rebellion that desolates.' Ie, undercutting what that rebellion was all about. Dan 8-9 does realize that an end generation is coming in which the worst and best of Israel will manifest. The worst would be the rebellious lot that cripples the nation; the best would be Messiah who offers atonment from sin and provides everlasting righteousness but could 'rescue' Israel from the storm of rebellion by not having any reason to belong to that rebellion. I believe that to be the exact meaning of the lyrics of Lk 1:71 and 74. Because otherwise you have a declaration of war against Rome right there in the most sacred and earliest Christian song. I cannot accept that.

The mistake you made in your debates by IDing the victorious warrior as Christ is that you are offering exactly what the zealot apocalypticists were expecting, and not using the OT as the apostles were taught, which was said to be what they always did mean. The victory image behind Is 25 and Hos 13 was not meant to be about an actual end-times battle of Israel's neighbors. That is the flaw of Judaistic/D'ist/futurist literalism. The NT says no, it was about death and sin. Yes, it does read that way and is an understandable mistake. But there are indications all along that it was never meant that way.

So the zealot faction took it most literally to the worst usage, while the NT people maintained that it never was to go that direction, and was Christocentric, and was about the salvation of grace. And this is the difference I have been trying to communicate to you and EbedM has to some extent as well.

It's so much easier to be a futurist and not have to think about all that.

 

[Interplanner]

Doug, actually I think I have a reference someplace that says that same thing about maschiach must have meant God. The point of the reference was to clarify that that is why Paul said the man of sin would claim to be god in the midst of the stormy events of 66+ mentioned in 2 Th 2, at the temple. All the more reason why the Christ of the Gospel be a clean break from all that, which it was.

 

[Interplanner]

Doug I reread #5, and the problem is you are the one saying that figure is Christ when you move back 'salvation from sins' to last page of the gospel accounts.

I am detecting a change though: you used to say that a kingdom was being offered to Israel and that's why the salvation from sins is expressed later. I don't see where you are expressing the first item any more.

 

[Douggg]

You have been saying that before the Res, the Jewish understanding (and therefore the disciples) was the maschiach. A man-king who would be able to set up a Davidic kingdom. I know that was debated. I think you even said that was the offer of the 'gospel' of the kingdom, so we had the debate about the Gospel. Because it is not a gospel about a kingdom but the Gospel that belongs to the kingdom of God which did come.

But also, even what you are saying about how he does not figure as greatly as God is saying what I am saying. The zealots and the apocalyptic literature in the NT background (DSS, War Scroll, War of Sons of Light against Sons of Darkness, etc) have this figure they are expecting. Very close to God but definitely human. This obviously led to the craze for God to intervene as the zealots revolted, to a belief that he would 'emerge' from among them.

Wait a minute, Judaism never believed that (in the blue). They believe(d) that the messiah would be a righteous person, selected by God to be their King.

But this (zealot and apocalyptic belief) was not the theme that was said by the NT to be there the whole time, even if it used agressive terms like the 'arm of salvation' or 'horn of strength' (Lk 1), because it was trying to say that these terms always did have to do with salvation from sins, which in turn did have some practical results about the 'rebellion that desolates.'

Luke 1:
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;


In Judaism, they don't believe the same concept concerning redemption as in Christianity. And Salvation in Judaism pertains to physical salvation, that is, being killed, as from one's enemies.



Zachrais, who was speaking the above prophecy was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean he understood what the plan of Salvation was ahead of the cross - if that's what you are driving at. I could be misunderstanding you.

Ie, undercutting what that rebellion was all about. Dan 8-9 does realize that an end generation is coming in which the worst and best of Israel will manifest. The worst would be the rebellious lot that cripples the nation; the best would be Messiah who offers atonment from sin and provides everlasting righteousness but could 'rescue' Israel from the storm of rebellion by not having any reason to belong to that rebellion. I believe that to be the exact meaning of the lyrics of Lk 1:71 and 74. Because otherwise you have a declaration of war against Rome right there in the most sacred and earliest Christian song. I cannot accept that.

I think the Romans were well aware of Jewish belief that the messiah would remove the Gentile occupiers from their land. That belief about the messiah was well established before what Zachrais said. Nonetheless, it could have been Pilate made sure to drive the point home Rome would not be putting up with such a rebellion when he placed the cross above Jesus's head king of the Jews, both mocking their belief and showing the futility of such a king opposing Rome. Although unlikely, because Pilate showed sympathy for Jesus that he was innocent of any crime against Rome in spite of what the religious leaders accused him of being an insurrectionist.

It seems to me that a person having the Jewish (Judaism) mindset listening to Zarchrais, thought he was speaking about the mashiach, who would fight the battles of God in restoring the kingdom of Israel from the gentile occupiers. And that the person would bring righteousness back to the nation, redeeming them to be a holy nation again. Which is what the followers saw and hope for in Jesus. Jesus never went the restore Israel from being occupied by gentiles route - because that was not his mission at the time.

But I don't think he did it to prevent Rome from coming down hard on the Jews.... because of what it says in Matthew 23, about him wanting to gather them as a mother hen would protect her chicks under he wing. Rome is no match for God. But they refused to accept him as king. So they got pounded on hard anyway in 70 AD.

The mistake you made in your debates by IDing the victorious warrior as Christ is that you are offering exactly what the zealot apocalypticists were expecting, and not using the OT as the apostles were taught, which was said to be what they always did mean. The victory image behind Is 25 and Hos 13 was not meant to be about an actual end-times battle of Israel's neighbors. That is the flaw of Judaistic/D'ist/futurist literalism. The NT says no, it was about death and sin. Yes, it does read that way and is an understandable mistake. But there are indications all along that it was never meant that way.

Well, I am going by what it says in Zechariah 14. Let's deal with that. Futurism takes the position that Zechariah 14 is at the end of the 7 years, as the nations assemble at Armagedddon and head down to Jerusalem to stop Jesus from Returning. The Jews (Judaism) believe that the messiah will fight the battles of God in defending Israel are biblical; they just don't realize that the messiah is Jesus.

So the zealot faction took it most literally to the worst usage, while the NT
people maintained that it never was to go that direction, and was Christocentric, and was about the salvation of grace. And this is the difference I have been trying to communicate to you and EbedM has to some extent as well.

Jesus's mission at his first coming was to redeem mankind from the fall, bringing salvation from sin. Futurism believes that. At his Second appearing, he will not be coming for the same reason as the first, but as the great conquering Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Doug

 

[Interplanner]

Zach is the one who says it is all about forgiveness of sins! and is not a threat of revolt, v77. You treat your definitions like theology and abstractions. In the 1st century milieu, if you said salvation was protection from being killed, the only meaning it would have would have been in reference to Rome and prob in armed conflict with their occupying forces.

Well, your last paragraph above is a marvel! Now he did come for sins. What the heck, Doug! I have 10 posts for you, besides EbedM's, saying so, and all that because the OT says so, sometimes quite plainly. Where have you been?

My complaint is that if you think Lord of Lord and King of Kings is meant in a Judaic flavor, and have not been preaching that Jesus (historical, not the future) is the Christ (Acts 18 twice), then you have been doing a disservice to your Jewish friends.

For now, let's note that Lk 1:67 is that this came by the Spirit; therefore, we are not dealing with Judaism's veil over previous prophecy and the paradosis, etc. We dont' have to try to figure out when this means Christ crucified, nor to whom, because it is the same Spirit as after the Res. It is not going to be loaded with Judaistic, Judaizing or Zealot meanings; it means not to be. It would be as useless to a zealot organizer as was Jesus' entering Jerusalem on a little donkey. The same with Lk 2:38's redemption of Jerusalem. It meant that there was a way to preserve Jerusalem if the rebellion for the covenant could be stopped. Jesus validated that until it was hid from their eyes.

 

[Douggg]

Zach is the one who says it is all about forgiveness of sins! and is not a threat of revolt, v77.

Hi Inter, I had actually quoted Luke 1:77 and included it in preparing my previous post and wrote a few paragraphs about, but decided not to include it because you were referencing the other verses.

76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

So Zacharias is speaking about John the Baptist (in blue) in verse 77 (in red). Or it could be talking about the messiah himself. I think it could be read either way. Going with the John the Baptst as be the one verse 77 is referring to.....

So why isn't verse 77 saying that John the Baptist preached personal salvation for remission of sins, the gospel of Salvation? John the Baptist preached the first step of the gospel of Salvation, repentance. He did not preach Jesus and him crucified.

The steps of the gospel of Salvation, Jesus gave in Luke 24:
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.


What would have the Jews thought when they heard Zecharias, everything put together including redemption and salvation from their enemies, ?



The Jews have a herd mentality! They went into Egyptian bondage together. They came out of Egypt together. In their words, at their sites, they had a national revelation of God at Mount Sinai. They went into Babylonian captivity together. The came out of Babylonian captivity together. Their's is a herd mentality.


redemption to them is national redemption, restoring Israel to it former independence, restoring Israel to being a nation of Holy people, who are observing the Torah, rightfully keeping the laws of the Mt. Sinai covenant. That's how the Jews (Judaism) even today see the messianic age.


So let's look at waht Zecharias said...




68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;


What covenant would the Jews have thought about? The Mt. Sinai covenant. The promise of a King Messiah was given them while they related to God according to the Mt. Sinai covenant.

It all had to do with the nation of Israel, the herd, and it all had to do with that land God had given them, and that they be a holy people unique to the world.

In Judaism today, there has been no change in their mentality. They don't see a personal salvation. They see redemption of the nation as a whole. They see the nation returning to being a holy people, who the mashiach's role would be that he would teach them how to rightfully obey the Torah, the laws, which would have included repentance, to bring salvation to the nation freeing them from gentile influence. And that's what the disciples and early believers in Jesus before the cross thought of him as being that long awaited mashiach.

Well, your last paragraph above is a marvel! Now he did come for sins. What the heck, Doug! I have 10 posts for you, besides EbedM's, saying so, and all that because the OT says so, sometimes quite plainly. Where have you been?

Of course, Jesus came to be the Savior from sins. But they didn't know that.

Jesus was the one God sent the Jews to be their king, but God foreknew that they would reject him. And that the religious leaders would seek to crucify him.

My complaint is that if you think Lord of Lord and King of Kings is meant in a Judaic flavor, and have not been preaching that Jesus (historical, not the future) is the Christ (Acts 18 twice),

The Jews are not wrong about everything. They have a lot that is right. Including that the messiah would fight for them. Which is what Jesus will do as it says of him, as the Lord in Zechariah 14.

In Zechariah 14:9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Do you take exception to verse 9 above, is referring to Jesus?

then you have been doing a disservice to your Jewish friends.

I have no idea of what you are talking about. How does my view that Jesus will rescue them at the end of the 7 years, a disservice to the Jews?

Doug

 

[Interplanner]

Doug wrote:

What covenant would the Jews have thought about? The Mt. Sinai covenant

That's exactly where you are stuck Doug. Ever heard of the new covenant? Ever heard that Jer expected it post-exile, sort of tail-end? Ever heard Dan 9 (since Dan was just reading the same passage in Jeremiah) mentions a covenant being confirmed?

I'm not stuck where you are. But even if it is something earlier, you are stuck there and not Abraham's. Why is that? Why is the burning question of Gal 3 between Promise and Law covenants? The Law does not set aside a previous covenant, and the Promise was with the Seed of God which is Christ. Or else you have a huge problem with Pauline theology that you need to state. Which Judaism had, and has.

 

[Interplanner]

Doug wrote:
the Savior from sins. But they didn't know that.

Who didn't know this and when?

 

[Interplanner]

Doug wrote:
I have no idea of what you are talking about

this had a context Doug. The context was the assertion by the apostles that Jesus of Nazareth as known in history was the Christ. All through Acts there is nothing futurist-Judaic about this proclamation.

You've also now said that the rejection point was the Davidic king, that that was the content of the rejection. Refer to Jn 6. That's not it. Jn 7:1 says they were in waiting for this reason.

"Text without context is pretext." --Paxton, pres. Queensland Bible Inst.

 

[Douggg]

Doug wrote:
the Savior from sins. But they didn't know that.

Who didn't know this and when?

The gospel of Salvation, as revealed to understanding by Jesus in Luke 24:44-48, was kept a mystery from every created being.

I don't have a calendar date of when Jesus spoke to them in Luke 24:44-48.

Doug

 

[Douggg]

Doug wrote:
I have no idea of what you are talking about

this had a context Doug. The context was the assertion by the apostles that Jesus of Nazareth as known in history was the Christ. All through Acts there is nothing futurist-Judaic about this proclamation.

You've also now said that the rejection point was the Davidic king, that that was the content of the rejection. Refer to Jn 6. That's not it. Jn 7:1 says they were in waiting for this reason.

"Text without context is pretext." --Paxton, pres. Queensland Bible Inst.

Inter, when you refer to John 6, or any other biblical passage please give the exact verse{s) as well, because it is very hard from me to figure out what you are talking about. John 6 covers three pages in my KJV bible, I have to go through all three pages to try and guess what you are referring to. When you take shortcuts, it makes me spend a lot of unnecessary time, and to you too because I may not be responding to your point at all, because I am left to guess what you are talking about.

In John 6:15, the crowd wanted to take and make him king right then, but Jesus left instead. The reason was that it was not time for him to be king.
The prophecies were that their King Messiah would come riding on a donkey. Which is what happened at the beginning of that last passover week. His followers hailing him as King.

In John 7:1 there were some who wanted to kill him among the Jews. He said in John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

As far as the Jews killing him for reasons of rejecting him as Messiah, it was in the Jewish understanding of Messiah. They were not rejecting the gospel of Salvation from sins, which is based on his death on the cross, his shed blood - that they were completely unaware of.

On the cross, Pilate had put a plaque, Jesus King of the Jews. We have no king but Caesar, the crowd shouted. Satan was ultimately the one who crucified Jesus because he did not want the kingdom of God to become the rule on earth, so he killed the king to prevent it from happening.


Doug

 

[Interplanner]

read, read, read. The reason for whole chapters is just that. You are reading too little.

He said you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood and they were furious. They knew the description of a pashcal feast of God when they heard it. Then they wanted to kill him for that reason: for saying he was the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

Not rejecting the kingdom. Rejecting the Gospel as the fulfillment of OT themes, motifs, images, destiny, meaning.

Let's go back to your rejecting the kingdom theory. If you really pay attention to the OT, the transition to something beyond the ordinary is there. Sorry I don't have even the chapter on this one this time but in the new kingdom, Isaiah says, its walls will be called Salvation and its gates Praise. Now really, to we need to ask any further if there is something totally new intended by putting things this way? Isn't that a living temple of people? It may be ch 25, which is where the great victory is mentioned and it is victory over death as referenced by Paul in 1 Cor 15.

 

[Aijalon]

I watched this video as a spinoff from watching the video in the Rapture thread started by Purple Hyacinth.

As I am watching this, I am thinking what is going on in the muslim guys' head is that the Jews will all have been converted to Islam, when the Mahdi comes (but he is not letting on that in the video). And that the muslim Mahdi will be king over them (the Jews).

The Mahdi is not the messiah in Islam, but the muslim guy is saying that. The muslims believe that Isa (their version of Jesus) is coming back to rescue the Mahdi and his followers, when the dajjal the muslim version of the Antichrist is getting the better of them in battle. Of course, he mentioned nothing of that in the discussion.

What I would have liked to asked them - is the messiah's religion going to be Islam or Judaism?

What is amazing to me is that the muslim guy says at minute 13:25, that to live together in peace first step is Egypt, Turkey, Israel, and Palestine unite. After that the participation of Iran, Pakistan, and other countries, with the participation of Russia! He says we will form the sea of friendship.

Sounds to me like the formation of Gog/Magog when they decide Israel is not playing ball in that alliance - so they attack them.

At the start of the video, they are both saying that King Messiah leads them in the 7 years of burning the weapons of war in Ezekiel 39. Neither of them commented on who Gog/Magog was. The Rabbi's were saying that the messiah, the King of Israel will reign during those 7 years as the implements of war are being burned up - of course they aren't considering that their perceived King messiah will be the Antichrist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xniv82QRdDg

Gog is Europe (the sides of the North)
Magog is from - oh I'll just let you see the scripture for yourself....

EZEKIEL 39:6 And I have sent a fire against Magog, And against the confident inhabitants of the isles, And they have known that I [am] Jehovah.
​

So I guess it doesn't matter what this phony imam says, Islam is not allied to Gog, the USA is.

 

[Douggg]

Gog is Europe (the sides of the North)
Magog is from - oh I'll just let you see the scripture for yourself....

EZEKIEL 39:6 And I have sent a fire against Magog, And against the confident inhabitants of the isles, And they have known that I [am] Jehovah.
​

So I guess it doesn't matter what this phony imam says, Islam is not allied to Gog, the USA is.

I don't see how since one of the countries listed in Ezekiel 38 is Persia.

Doug

 

[Interplanner]

Doug,
I noticed from the last line of my last post here, that this whole question of when did anyone know Christ had to be sacrificed is structured or unpacked historically just the opposite of what you are saying. The message is clear and is just that (his sacrifice) until Israel refuses too many times, and from that point on it is hidden (Lk 13--I'm aware that Luke tends to run early on these things, but there it is just over half way through). This is why the quote from Dt 18 (Acts 3) is so resounding about the destiny of Israel in that generation, and about their listening to the Prophet. Peter is giving them one more chance, although it is still being offered by Paul each time he is there. He doesn't seem to give up until 28.