Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Presumably by "nation of Israel" you mean "bloodline of Israel".

Ancient bloodlines are ubiquitous within the human race, as a result of natural genetic dispersion and diffusion through migration and interaction over thousands of years.

Israel's is no exception. Abraham's bloodline, i.e. physical DNA, is found in every person on the planet.

The Jewish community itself endorses and applauds that reality, as seen in the sources of the majority of the material below. The reality is established mathematically, and supported empirically.

It is a further confirmation of the spiritual irrelevance of physical DNA, i.e. bloodline.

God's interest is in each person's spiritual bloodline, also originating with Abraham, but not found in every person on the planet.

Two chromosomes of spiritual DNA.

Faith and obedience.

In and to Him and His Son.

That is all He requires.

That is all He recognizes.

Nothing else.


Example of the mathematical confirmation of ancestral genetic ubiquity

Abraham lineage
DNA Tests Could Fulfill God’s Promise to Abraham by Revealing Millions of Jews. But How Jewish is Jewish Enough?
Israel in all of Us? Research finds 'Jewish genes' in unusual places
Jewish-Roots Arabs in Israel
Tracing the lost tribes to Jewish communities in Africa
Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel? - CNN
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/...-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/...her-claims-proof-of-tribe-of-Ephraim-in-India
https://www.jta.org/2013/05/23/life...bush-bani-israel-tribe-claims-jewish-heritage




Was not Israel formed from a lineage?

Was it not because the forefathers of Israel feared, obeyed, and trusted God that a nation was made out of them?

Was it not a nation of this lineage whom God had set apart from the rest of the world for Himself to be His representatives to the rest of mankind?

What is not the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the Word of God was first given?

Was it not through this lineage the Messiah came?

Was it not from this lineage the Gospel was first preached?

And is it not their land to which Christ will come again and from which He will reign?


You do get one thing to your credit and that is your source links are worth investigating.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why did you take the verse above out of its context?

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


And when do you think the modern State of Israel "calls upon and receives her Messiah", and what scripture is your belief built upon?


You have said earlier it is only the "remnant", and now you are stating the "nation".

Which is it?
Is that "nation" based upon geographic location, or by DNA sample, as Brother JGR asked?


.



“Why did you take the verse above out of its context?”



I did not take it out of its context. That is how all promises made to both the nation of Israel and the Church will be fulfilled.



“And when do you think the modern State of Israel "calls upon and receives her Messiah", and what scripture is your belief built upon?”



In a time of distress the Messiah comes to the rescue of the nation of Israel. Read Zechariah chapters 12-14.



“You have said earlier it is only the "remnant", and now you are stating the "nation".
Which is it?”



Both. A remnant can still be large enough to continue being called a nation. Did you think a remnant would be limited to as few as four or five?



“Is that "nation" based upon geographic location, or by DNA sample, as Brother JGR asked?”



Where do you think the nation of Israel came from in the first place and where were they initially geographically settled? Where do they reside to this day?
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where do you think the nation of Israel came from in the first place and where were they initially geographically settled? Where do they reside to this day?

By "they" would you be speaking of the descendants of Jacob (Israel) ?

Hundreds of years before the time of Christ, the Northern Tribes were taken into captivity. Since that time their bloodlines have mixed with others and have now been spread throughout the world.
This fact is proven by a DNA test of people from Ireland.




Are all of the Irish people who have some of Jacob's DNA "Israelites"?

How about the Palestinian Christians now living in Bethlehem?
Are they "Israelites"?


.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Your denial is your judge.
Well I have to admit; I have been for a cruise on de Nile.

But your nasty insinuations about me and your rejection of God's plan for His originally chosen people, count against you.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well I have to admit; I have been for a cruise on de Nile.

But your nasty insinuations about me and your rejection of God's plan for His originally chosen people, count against you.

Romans 9
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

His originally and perpetually Chosen People.
Us.
Except for those who don't think they're one of us.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Was not Israel formed from a lineage?

It was formed from a Divine Covenant extended to all lineages. (Genesis 17:12; Exodus 12:48,49; Leviticus 19:34; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:16)

Was it not because the forefathers of Israel feared, obeyed, and trusted God that a nation was made out of them?

A nation of diverse lineages was made, both out of them, and in addition to them.

Was it not a nation of this lineage whom God had set apart from the rest of the world for Himself to be His representatives to the rest of mankind?

It was a nation, the faithful and obedient of whom God set apart from the rest of the nation for Himself to be His representatives to the rest of the nation, and the surrounding nations. The unfaithful and disobedient, He slew.

What is not the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the Word of God was first given?

It was given in His Covenant to those of every lineage who accepted that Covenant in faith and obedience.

Was it not through this lineage the Messiah came?

Matthew 1 records four Gentile mothers in four generations of Jesus' lineage. There is a further probability of additional Gentile mothers in the remaining thirty-eight generations. Jesus was of multiple lineages.

Was it not from this lineage the Gospel was first preached?

It was first preached by Jesus, who was of multiple lineages.

And is it not their land to which Christ will come again and from which He will reign?

He is sole Heir of all things including the land (which is thus not "their land") (Hebrews 1:1,2), and His reign is without beginning or end (Hebrews 1:8).


And the Abrahamic physical lineage is now ubiquitous along side all other physical lineages in every individual on planet earth.

But it is Abraham's spiritual lineage which is God's concern for each of those individuals.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: BABerean2
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Romans 9
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

His originally and perpetually Chosen People.
This I agree with, but who are the 'Gentiles'? We are told in John 7:35 that the dispersion of Israel is among the Gentiles and we know the House of Israel has lost their identity, so they are indistinguishable from other peoples. Proved by how the vast multitude who gather in Jerusalem are from every tribe, race, nation and language.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A remnant can still be large enough to continue being called a nation. Did you think a remnant would be limited to as few as four or five?

How about 7000?

Was that Remnant large enough to continue being called a nation?
(1 Kings 19:1-18)
Paul seemed to think so (Romans 11:2-4)

And if so, what about 3000? (Acts 2:41)
Large Enough to be called a Nation?
Peter seemed to think so
(1 Peter 2:9)

You either have to be ignorant of, or worse yet, willfully ignore scripture to claim THE prophesied remnant of National Israel did NOT call upon Jesus and was NOT saved as a nation in the 1st century.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This I agree with, but who are the 'Gentiles'? We are told in John 7:35 that the dispersion of Israel is among the Gentiles and we know the House of Israel has lost their identity, so they are indistinguishable from other peoples. Proved by how the vast multitude who gather in Jerusalem are from every tribe, race, nation and language.
That I agree with, but since "us" in Romans 9:24 is all-inclusive, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.

Which Paul soon confirms in Romans 10:12.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
That I agree with, but since "us" in Romans 9:24 is all-inclusive, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile.

Which Paul soon confirms in Romans 10:12.
We Christians are the people to whom the Lord will show mercy.....for those faithful people, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.
This does not mean that anyone loses their ethnic identity. We all remain Jews or New Zealanders, etc.
But what you don't seem to see, is how God's Promises to the Patriarchs will be literally fulfilled, as the Christian peoples go to live in all of the holy land, who are actually mainly people from the 12 tribes; the lost sheep of Israel, whom Jesus HAS saved. His Mission was successful among those peoples who God knows are Jacobs actual descendants.

Many other peoples have Abrahams genes, the Arabs for example, but they don't accept Jesus. Only a few from other people groups will become true Christians.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We Christians are the people to whom the Lord will show mercy.....for those faithful people, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.
This does not mean that anyone loses their ethnic identity. We all remain Jews or New Zealanders, etc.

I was unaware New Zealanders were a separate and distinct ethnicity.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I was unaware New Zealanders were a separate and distinct ethnicity.
I should have said nationality. But I meant ethnicity and I am a Caucasian with English/Scottish ancestry, therefore an Israelite by descent. Also by my faith.

Added; Also by my Christian faith.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You have made the case that because there is no specific mention (only implied interpretation) of land restoration in the NT, then the promise of land restoration from the old covenant is still in effect. This type of argument, where one claims something is true based on absence of evidence to the contrary, is known as an argument of ignorance.

I on the other hand, have made an argument from silence (which is different than an argument from ignorance). Because the NT is very clear that that old covenant was taken away and made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9), and is absent of any mention of land restoration under the new covenant, then I argued land restoration is not a part of the new covenant.


Unlike an argument from ignorance, an argument from silence is not always a fallacy in informal logic
.



I agree the sacrificial system passed away. So has the food, drink and external washings (Hebrews 9:10), So has the feasts and Sabbaths (colossians 2:16-17), so has the priest hood (hebrews 7:12), so has circumcision (galatians 6:15).

But I am not discussing which specific laws have passed away. I am talking about the agreement between God and the nation of Israel that has passed away.



Your "interpretation" based on eschatological bias implies that. For in fact, there is not even one single NT verse that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration.



Does Deuteronomy 30:1-6 mention multiple exiles followed by multiple re gatherings?

In fact, you will find no OT scripture post Babylonian exile that mentions a 2nd exiling due to punishment followed by 2nd re gathering.


God promised that If Israel repented and turned back to him, following the curses of the law being poured out, then He would return them to the land and restore their heart.

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Paul has this being fulfilled in the 1st century.
Colossians 2:11 him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

According to Paul only true Jews are those inwardly
Romans 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.




Again, the promises to the nation of Israel under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL. They were not UNCONDITIONAL promises.



Scripture states the old covenant was made obsolete and taken away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9). I believe that. That is not beyond scripture. To Go beyond scripture would be to draw an imaginary line and declare some parts of the old covenant AGREEMENT are still in effect while others done away with to suit ones eschatological bias.



The promises under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL on the nation of Israel's obedience (deteuteronomy 28:1-14, Deuteronomy 30:1-5).

That agreement is no longer in effect. It makes no logical sense for CONDITIONAL promises of an agreement to remain after the agreement has been terminated.




This is only true of unconditional promises. Conditional promises are cancelled out if the agreement is cancelled, otherwise they wouldn't be conditional promises. And if they are not conditional promises, then Israel's obedience wasn't required in order to receive the blessings of the old covenant.



This does not answer the question, so what do you personally believe the barn is?



There are 2 gatherings mentioned in the NT, 1.) into the body of Christ (john 11:52) 2.) the gathering at the 2nd advent (2 thessalonians 2:1).

There is no mention of being gathered to the physical land of Israel in the NT.




So the days coming when God would sow his people among the nations and give them a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:27-34) has nothing to do with The son of man sowing the good seed?

I disagree. It seems to me you are unaware that Jesus draws His parables from OT scripture.




“You have made the case that because there is no specific mention (only implied interpretation) of land restoration in the NT, then the promise of land restoration from the old covenant is still in effect. This type of argument, where one claims something is true based on absence of evidence to the contrary, is known as an argument of ignorance.

I on the other hand, have made an argument from silence (which is different than an argument from ignorance). Because the NT is very clear that that old covenant was taken away and made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9), and is absent of any mention of land restoration under the new covenant, then I argued land restoration is not a part of the new covenant.

Unlike an argument from ignorance, an argument from silence is not always a fallacy in informal logic
.”


An argument from silence is no argument at all. It is a red herring that refuses to admit that there is lack of evidence for the case that the argument is made for. You make the case that the land restoration promise to the Jews is no longer in effect simply because it was associated with the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant.

Despite the fact that the New Covenant scriptures do not say that land restoration promises were canceled, you assume that must be the case because the Old Covenant with which they were associated is now obsolete. But that is only an assumption. Assumptions are not truth nor should they be a basis for doctrine. In the case of alleged canceling of land restoration promises, such an assumption is without merit.

In order to prove that my argument for land restoration still being in effect is an argument from ignorance, you would have to be able to prove that Paul did not believe that Israel would ever become a nation again under the New Covenant. In order to do that, you would have to prove that the reconciliation of the Jews to God through Christ was not founded upon Old Testament scriptures which many times speak of the restoration of the Jews to their homeland physically and their spiritual restoration to God.


“Your "interpretation" based on eschatological bias implies that. For in fact, there is not even one single NT verse that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration…Again, the promises to the nation of Israel under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL. They were not UNCONDITIONAL promises.”


Is an unchanging God who is faithful in keeping all of His promises an eschatological bias?


“Does Deuteronomy 30:1-6 mention multiple exiles followed by multiple re gatherings?

In fact, you will find no OT scripture post Babylonian exile that mentions a 2nd exiling due to punishment followed by 2nd re gathering.

God promised that If Israel repented and turned back to him, following the curses of the law being poured out, then He would return them to the land and restore their heart.”


There is no doubt that the cited passage applies to the Babylonian and post Babylonian exile, but it does not say that this was only going to be a one-time fulfillment. If that was the case, I believe the passage would give clear unquestionable indication of that, but contextually, that is not the case.

And scripture makes very clear that the relationship between God and Israel has been one consisting of generations faithful and devoted to Him and generations that have rejected Him; an ongoing cycle that will be brought to an end when the nation welcomes Jesus as their Messiah after all wickedness and ungodliness has been purged from them.


“To Go beyond scripture would be to draw an imaginary line and declare some parts of the old covenant AGREEMENT are still in effect while others done away with to suit ones eschatological bias.”


To say that the promises of land restoration to the Jews have been canceled is in itself drawing an imaginary line that declares things canceled that the scriptures have not declared canceled.


“The promises under the old covenant were CONDITIONAL on the nation of Israel's obedience (deteuteronomy 28:1-14, Deuteronomy 30:1-5)… That agreement is no longer in effect. It makes no logical sense for CONDITIONAL promises of an agreement to remain after the agreement has been terminated…

Conditional promises are cancelled out if the agreement is cancelled, otherwise they wouldn't be conditional promises. And if they are not conditional promises, then Israel's obedience wasn't required in order to receive the blessings of the old covenant.”


There is only one indisputably conditional promise declared by God and that was in order for a man to be perpetually on the throne of David, Israel had to remain faithful and obedient to Him. (1 Ki. 2:4, 6:12-13, 9:4-5) But because they did not remain faithful, they were dispersed among the nations and they will not have a king sitting upon the throne of David again until the return of Christ.

But as for the promise of land restoration, that is not a conditional promise in the sense that we understand a conditional promise to be because God has not cast off Israel and has continued to leave the door open for them to repent so that they will not only be reconciled to Him once more but also be given all the blessings that He has promised them which also includes their homeland.



“This does not answer the question, so what do you personally believe the barn is?”



I thought I made myself clear what I believe the barn to be. What does the wheat represent?



“So the days coming when God would sow his people among the nations and give them a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:27-34) has nothing to do with The son of man sowing the good seed? I disagree. It seems to me you are unaware that Jesus draws His parables from OT scripture.”


If Jesus did draw His parables from the OT scriptures, He would have pointed us to the scriptures to which they relate. This parable does not point back to the prophet Jeremiah because the topics of the cited Jeremiah passage and the cited parable are not related to one another.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An argument from silence is no argument at all. It is a red herring that refuses to admit that there is lack of evidence for the case that the argument is made for. You make the case that the land restoration promise to the Jews is no longer in effect simply because it was associated with the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant.

Despite the fact that the New Covenant scriptures do not say that land restoration promises were canceled, you assume that must be the case because the Old Covenant with which they were associated is now obsolete. But that is only an assumption. Assumptions are not truth nor should they be a basis for doctrine. In the case of alleged canceling of land restoration promises, such an assumption is without merit.

In order to prove that my argument for land restoration still being in effect is an argument from ignorance, you would have to be able to prove that Paul did not believe that Israel would ever become a nation again under the New Covenant. In order to do that, you would have to prove that the reconciliation of the Jews to God through Christ was not founded upon Old Testament scriptures which many times speak of the restoration of the Jews to their homeland physically and their spiritual restoration to God.


Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Good, we agree Jesus is presently reigning from heaven.



Jesus reigns while his enemies exist (1 Corinthians 15:25). Denying trump as one's president does not mean he stops being their president. So to, denying Jesus as one's king does not mean he stops being their king.



Paul is not saying that creation bears witness that there is a God in Colossians 1. Nor does Paul mention that the nations knew the foretellings of Christ in colosians 1. Paul specifically states the gospel HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED (past tense) to every creature under heaven.

Colossians 1:23 indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.



This argument does not contextually apply to the definition of oikumene. Your argument doesn't really even make sense when we look at the definition of oikumene.



Sure, just provide scripture that states Jesus said no one knows the year.



As a preterist, I believe God's words are true. Thus if John lived to 70ad, he lived to the coming of Christ to Israel in judgment. "this generation shall not pass away..."

Me not believing in your speculation does not mean I believe "God is of limited power". You're conflating 2 unrelated things.




Never said they would be able to pinpoint the exact day or hour, only that they would be ready as the one who stays awake is ready for the thief.



I agree



Good, so you don't believe Peter though the return of Christ would occur a thousand years later. You agree that Peter believed it imminent. We are in agreement.



All your examples only show that repentance delays destruction. Your examples in no way show that God sets a specific date and then delays that date.




So the ancient world was oblivious to astrology?




I wasn't going to copy every single data point, but 10 year trends. Again the increase is not statistically significant. But hey, let's go by your logic. Since 2010, earthquakes have been decreasing.


"In 2010 there were 2383
In 2018 there were 1808"





“Jesus reigns while his enemies exist (1 Corinthians 15:25). Denying trump as one's president does not mean he stops being their president. So to, denying Jesus as one's king does not mean he stops being their king.”


But Jesus has not yet come to reign upon the earth. It is only when He comes to reign upon the earth that His rule of law will be enforced.





“Paul is not saying that creation bears witness that there is a God in Colossians 1. Nor does Paul mention that the nations knew the foretellings of Christ in colosians 1. Paul specifically states the gospel HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED (past tense) to every creature under heaven.”



But he does say that creation bears witness in the first chapter of Romans and that people choose to ignore it to their peril.



“This argument does not contextually apply to the definition of oikumene. Your argument doesn't really even make sense when we look at the definition of oikumene.”





That is because you are looking at it from the perspective of a man and not God’s.




“…just provide scripture that states Jesus said no one knows the year.”





Provide scripture that states the exact year. If we cannot know the day nor the hour, then we cannot know the day nor the hour of any given year.

“As a preterist, I believe God's words are true. Thus if John lived to 70ad, he lived to the coming of Christ to Israel in judgment. "this generation shall not pass away...Me not believing in your speculation does not mean I believe "God is of limited power". You're conflating 2 unrelated things.”





Israel may have faced judgment, but Christ did not return. If you deny that which scripture has indicated being possible, you are no longer disputing any speculation of mine, you are arguing with scripture.



“Never said they would be able to pinpoint the exact day or hour, only that they would be ready as the one who stays awake is ready for the thief.”



Meaning He could come at any time, whether that day be near or far off.



“…so you don't believe Peter though the return of Christ would occur a thousand years later. You agree that Peter believed it imminent. We are in agreement.”





Do you know what “imminent” means? It means the Jesus could return at any given time, whether that day be near or far off.




“So the ancient world was oblivious to astrology?”





There is a huge difference between astronomy and astrology. What Jesus was foretelling had nothing to do with astrology; the practice of which the scripture forbids anyway.




“I wasn't going to copy every single data point, but 10 year trends. Again the increase is not statistically significant. But hey, let's go by your logic. Since 2010, earthquakes have been decreasing.

"In 2010 there were 2383

In 2018 there were 1808"



You are clearly manipulating the data to suit your Preterist beliefs. I looked at the data in full myself and it does not reflect what you are claiming. I can respect an honest challenge to the doctrine I hold to but misrepresenting data the way you just did is far from honest and does not represent the logic that I am using. Not even close.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But Jesus has not yet come to reign upon the earth. It is only when He comes to reign upon the earth that His rule of law will be enforced.

Paul said He comes "In Flaming fire" in the passage below.

2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.


In Psalm 2 the potter smashes the flawed pottery with the rod of Iron, instead of correcting it like a school-master.

In 2 Timothy 4:1, Paul reveals that Christ judges both the living and the dead at His return.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I should have said nationality. But I meant ethnicity

Why should you have said nationality if you meant ethnicity?

and I am a Caucasian with English/Scottish ancestry, therefore an Israelite by descent. Also by my faith.

You aren't making any sense.

Added; Also by my Christian faith.

Which has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality...

You are all over the map.
I have absolutely no idea what point you are attempting to convey regarding either ethnicity or nationality.
Do you even know what you are trying to say?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Israel may have faced judgment, but Christ did not return. If you deny that which scripture has indicated being possible, you are no longer disputing any speculation of mine, you are arguing with scripture.

Seems to me it is you who is arguing with scripture if you claim the following Judgement of 1st century Israel took place, while also claiming the Lord of the Vineyard did NOT come and do it....
Matthew 21:40-41
40 “Therefore, when the Lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

Do you know what “imminent” means? It means the Jesus could return at any given time, whether that day be near or far off.

Incorrect... such a definition renders the word imminent meaningless.

Here's what Imminent means:
m·mi·nent
/ˈimənənt/
adjective
  1. 1.
    about to happen.
    "they were in imminent danger of being swept away"
    synonyms: impending, at hand, close, near, approaching, fast approaching, about to happen
Nothing about "Could be tomorrow or in 2000 years".
Such is a totally made up, make believe definition that, again, renders the word completley meaningLESS.

When something is wet you don't describe it as dry and claim well, dry can mean wet.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,563
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,794.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Why should you have said nationality if you meant ethnicity?



You aren't making any sense.



Which has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality...

You are all over the map.
I have absolutely no idea what point you are attempting to convey regarding either ethnicity or nationality.
Do you even know what you are trying to say?
I realize how difficult it is for most to grasp the facts of who is the real Israel.
I don't wonder at this, because God's Plan to hide His chosen people among the nations has, of course; been successful.
The small part of God's originally chosen, the House of Judah; the Jews have remained a visible entity. They rejected their chance at Redemption and remain in apostasy today.

The majority of the Israelite tribes, called the House of Israel; have lost their identity and are still scattered among the nations now. But even though their descendants never saw Jesus, THEY have accepted the Atoning sacrifice of Jesus and they comprise the majority of the faithful Christians today.

These truths is what the Bible is all about; the amazing way God has worked to establish a people who have freely believed in Him and kept His Commandments.
Great will be the Day when all the faithful Christians will gather into all of the holy Land, His people; blessed by the Lord. Isaiah 62:1-5, Isaiah 35:1-10, Romans 9:24-26
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.