The Identity of Gog and His Allies.

Biblewriter · Jan 28, 2015

Rev20 said:
Biblewriter, I realize you an award-winning author, but what you claim to know is questionable, at best. First, I know many Jews, and what you wrote is baloney. I have been to Jewish weddings, bar mitzvah's, bat mitzvah's, and have been invited to meals and gatherings at Jewish homes on many occasions over the years. For years before I retired, my next-door neighbors on either side were Jews. Yet, not one has made the claim you are making, because it would not be biblical; not in the context you are presenting it.

It is true that the bulk of those living in Jerusalem and Judaea were of the house of Judah (Judah and Benjamin,) but it is also true that the bulk of those killed by the Romans were of the the same two tribes. I suspect at least a small percentage of those of Judah were saved because "multitudes" followed Christ:
"And there followed [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." -- Matt 4:25
But Christ was not sent to the house of Judah. He specifically stated he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and he sent his disciples only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That means their messages were not necessarily to those in Jerusalem and Judaea, but to the scattered tribes; and the target audiences of their writings bear out that fact.

The truth is, only a remnant of Israel was saved, and that consisted of all twelve tribes. In the generation of Christ, members of all twelve tribes were both known, were Christians, and served God day and night. For example, we know Paul was speaking of Christians when he wrote this:
"Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." -- Acts 26:7
It is a myth that Paul was sent only to the Gentiles. He was also sent to the children of Israel:
"But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for [Paul] is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:" -- Acts 9:15
What about the disciples who were sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? We know that James was speaking to Christians when he wrote this letter to the scattered twelve tribes, because he identified them as Christians and as members of the Church:
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." -- Jas 1:1
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons." -- Jas 2:1
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." -- Jas 5:14-15
And we know Peter was writing to the lost sheep of the house of Israel when he wrote the following because he identified them as both the lost sheep and as Christians:
"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." -- 1Pet 1:1-2
"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." -- 1Pet 2:25
Only the tribes of Israel were "lost," so Peter could not have been writing to the Gentiles. The Gentiles never knew Christ to begin with, because only Israel was God's people until the Gentiles were allowed into the commonwealth of Israel:
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." -- Eph 2:11-13
Again, Peter and James and the other ten disciples were only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as was Christ. Paul was the only one specifically sent to both Jews and Gentiles.

It is a fact that there are minor exceptions to the mission of the disciples, such as the conversion of Cornelius by Peter; but their mission was never changed, that I am aware of. If anyone knows of such a change in their mission, please provide the scriptural references.
.

But there is another crucial point that is commonly overlooked. There were devout "Jews" in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, and they were from every nation under heaven. Therefore, there must have been Jews from the nations where the Assyrians deposited the house of Israel if there were Jews from every nation. It is a fact that Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, carried some of the house of Israel to the cities of the Medes:
"In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." -- 2Kin 17:6 KJV
Medes is specifically mentioned as one of the areas where the "devout Jews" on the day of Pentecost were from:
"Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes," -- Acts 2:9-10 KJV
Shalmaneser, as king of Assyria, also controlled Mesopotamia; and it is written that after carrying away Israel to Assyria, he repopulated Samaria with his own people from Babylon and other areas:
"And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof." -- 2Kin 17:24
We would have to assume that none of the house of Israel were resettled in Babylon by the Assyrians, if we are to also assume that the houses of Judah and Israel did not co-mingle when Judah was carried away into Babylon.

We also know that many from the house of Israel rejoined with Judah in the days of Rehoboam, king of Judah, when the king of Israel, Jeroboam set up false Gods.
"And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years: for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon." -- 2Chr 11:16-17
Now, if those of the house of Israel who returned to Judah were few in number, why did the Lord make the point that they "strengthened the king of Judah?"

We also know that in the days of King Asa that those of the house of Israel rejoined with Judah "in abundance:"
"And when Asa heard these words, and the prophecy of Oded the prophet, he took courage, and put away the abominable idols out of all the land of Judah and Benjamin, and out of the cities which he had taken from mount Ephraim, and renewed the altar of the Lord, that was before the porch of the Lord. And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the Lord his God was with him." -- 2Chr 15:8-9
One would generally assume that the words "in abundance" would be far more than "a few."

And, as you are aware, many of those who escaped captivity by the Assyrians, rejoined with Judah in the days of Hezekiah:
"And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel." -- 2Chr 30:1
"So the posts went with the letters from the king and his princes throughout all Israel and Judah, and according to the commandment of the king, saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again unto the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria." -- 2Chr 30:6
"Nevertheless divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem." -- 2Chr 30:11
"And all the congregation of Judah, with the priests and the Levites, and all the congregation that came out of Israel, and the strangers that came out of the land of Israel, and that dwelt in Judah, rejoiced. So there was great joy in Jerusalem: for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem." -- 2Chr 30:25-26
How many are "divers?" That would not be a few, would it? We can assume there were far more than a few that rejoined with Judah because there was great joy in Jerusalem, not since the days of Solomon.

And Ezra brought back many from the house of Israel:
"And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat, And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." -- Ezra 6:21-22
Like I said, Biblewriter, it is a myth that the restoration was not completed in the days of Christ, as Isaiah prophecied. If not, then we must assume that Christ let many of his own sheep die in their sins, because he said that He knew them, and they knew Him:
"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. . . . My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" -- John 10:14-16, 27
If Christ knew who His sheep were, and did not save them, but allowed them to die in their sins, how could He make the claim that He was the "good shepherd?"

If you can respond with more than a soundbyte, Biblewriter, it would be appreciated.

You are ignoring the fact that from the very beginning, Israel was a country small enough that it was not difficult to come up to Jerusalem from any part of the entire country. In fact, all males were required to do so at least once a year. So the fact that many came to the worship services there did not even imply that they changed their residences from some other part of Israel to Judea.

Every place you quoted showing people of Israel joining in the worship in Jerusalem was exactly that. Coming up to worship there, not moving there. And all of them were written of times before Israel was carried away, not after.

The only place that would even seem to support your contention is the quotation from Ezra, and it does not conclusively support it. you quoted "And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat, And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." -- Ezra 6:21-22

Men of Judah were also children of Israel, and Assyria did not have its own king. It was ruled from Babylon by the same king that had released Ezra. So this passage does not necessarily mean a reference to people from the much earlier deportation.

As to the rest, the term Israel had always been used interchangeably for both the northern kingdom of only the ten tribes, and the sum total of all the tribes. And sometimes the generic term "Israel" was used, even when speaking only to people from the southern two tribes.

Scripture indeed clearly shows that there were a few individuals from other tribes mixed in with the people from the southern kingdom of Judah. But neither scripture nor human history records any ancient return of all twelve tribes. Your argument that it happened because it was prophesied does not hold any water whatsoever, for the real question is not whether or not it was going to happen, but whether or not it has already happened. And in this case, the key scripture in Ezekiel 36, where the piece or real estate previously occupied by Israel was promised that it would again be inhabited by absolutely all of "the house of Israel."

But this conversation has wondered far from its subject, which is the identity of God and of his allies.

Rev20 · Jan 29, 2015

Biblewriter said:
You are ignoring the fact that from the very beginning, Israel was a country small enough that it was not difficult to come up to Jerusalem from any part of the entire country. In fact, all males were required to do so at least once a year. So the fact that many came to the worship services there did not even imply that they changed their residences from some other part of Israel to Judea.

Every place you quoted showing people of Israel joining in the worship in Jerusalem was exactly that. Coming up to worship there, not moving there. And all of them were written of times before Israel was carried away, not after.

Not true, Biblewriter. I recommend you reexamine those scriptures.
.

Biblewriter said:
The only place that would even seem to support your contention is the quotation from Ezra, and it does not conclusively support it.. . . Men of Judah were also children of Israel, and Assyria did not have its own king. It was ruled from Babylon by the same king that had released Ezra. So this passage does not necessarily mean a reference to people from the much earlier deportation.

Biblewriter, again, you misinterpreted the scripture. Ezra was referring to the actual king of Assyria--the king during the time the northern tribes were in captivity by the king of Assyria. He said the Lord turned the heart of the king of Assyria to the children of Israel, implying they were treated favorably, at least in their worship of God.
.

Biblewriter said:
As to the rest, the term Israel had always been used interchangeably for both the northern kingdom of only the ten tribes, and the sum total of all the tribes. And sometimes the generic term "Israel" was used, even when speaking only to people from the southern two tribes.

But not the Houses of Israel and Judah after separation.
.

Biblewriter said:
Scripture indeed clearly shows that there were a few individuals from other tribes mixed in with the people from the southern kingdom of Judah. But neither scripture nor human history records any ancient return of all twelve tribes.

So, when James and Paul made these statements:

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." -- Jas 1:1

"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God, unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." -- Acts 26:6-7

Were they referring mostly to those from the house of Judah? It does not appear to be the case, and you have no supporting scripture to prove that to be the case.
.

Biblewriter said:
Your argument that it happened because it was prophesied does not hold any water whatsoever, for the real question is not whether or not it was going to happen, but whether or not it has already happened. And in this case, the key scripture in Ezekiel 36, where the piece or real estate previously occupied by Israel was promised that it would again be inhabited by absolutely all of "the house of Israel."

You added your own words to the scripture, Biblewriter. It appears you have taken the following passage out of context:

"But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the Lord." -- Eze 36:8-12 KJV

There is nothing in that verse about "absolutely all" of anything, except "all the tribes of the house of Israel," which in no way implies all the physical seed of Jacob, as you are implying.

Isaiah stated, about as plainly as any prophecy has been stated, that only a remnant SHALL return:

"For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness." -- Isa 10:22

Biblewriter, that prophecy also means, the rest SHALL NOT return. We know from the New Covenant that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (Rom 9:6,)" and they are not all children of Abraham who are the natural seed of Abraham, or even Jacob (Rom 9:7-8, Luke 3:8, John 8:39, 43-45; Rom 2:28-29; and Phil 3:3.) We also know this to be true:

"In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." -- Isa 45:25 KJV

But, yet, we also know that over a million were slaughtered in the first century by the Romans, or starved by the horrific famine inside Jerusalem during the siege. Therefore, they could not possibly have been the "seed of Israel" referred to in Isaiah 45:25, unless the definition of being justified and glorying is also spiritualized. So they must be like these who claimed to be Jews, and who also persecuted the early Christians:

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." -- Rev 2:9

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." -- Rev 3:9

Danoh · Jan 29, 2015

Biblewriter said:
You are ignoring the fact that from the very beginning, Israel was a country small enough that it was not difficult to come up to Jerusalem from any part of the entire country. In fact, all males were required to do so at least once a year. So the fact that many came to the worship services there did not even imply that they changed their residences from some other part of Israel to Judea.

Every place you quoted showing people of Israel joining in the worship in Jerusalem was exactly that. Coming up to worship there, not moving there. And all of them were written of times before Israel was carried away, not after.

The only place that would even seem to support your contention is the quotation from Ezra, and it does not conclusively support it. you quoted "And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat, And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel." -- Ezra 6:21-22

Men of Judah were also children of Israel, and Assyria did not have its own king. It was ruled from Babylon by the same king that had released Ezra. So this passage does not necessarily mean a reference to people from the much earlier deportation.

As to the rest, the term Israel had always been used interchangeably for both the northern kingdom of only the ten tribes, and the sum total of all the tribes. And sometimes the generic term "Israel" was used, even when speaking only to people from the southern two tribes.

Scripture indeed clearly shows that there were a few individuals from other tribes mixed in with the people from the southern kingdom of Judah. But neither scripture nor human history records any ancient return of all twelve tribes. Your argument that it happened because it was prophesied does not hold any water whatsoever, for the real question is not whether or not it was going to happen, but whether or not it has already happened. And in this case, the key scripture in Ezekiel 36, where the piece or real estate previously occupied by Israel was promised that it would again be inhabited by absolutely all of "the house of Israel."

But this conversation has wondered far from its subject, which is the identity of God and of his allies.

There is also the witness of the significance of the practice this passage relates...

Acts 1:

12. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

To find oneself stuck outside that allowed travel distance during Sabbath was indeed a grave no, no.

Grab a big juicy rock, fellas, got another one to be stoned to death...

riverrat · Jan 29, 2015

Danoh said:
There is also the witness of the significance of the practice this passage relates...

Acts 1:

12. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

To find oneself stuck outside that allowed travel distance during Sabbath was indeed a grave no, no.

Grab a big juicy rock, fellas, got another one to be stoned to death...

Also Mt. 24:20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Biblewriter · Feb 4, 2015

Rev20 said:
You added your own words to the scripture, Biblewriter. It appears you have taken the following passage out of context:

"But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people of Israel; for they are at hand to come. For, behold, I am for you, and I will turn unto you, and ye shall be tilled and sown: And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the Lord." -- Eze 36:8-12 KJV
There is nothing in that verse about "absolutely all" of anything, except "all the tribes of the house of Israel," which in no way implies all the physical seed of Jacob, as you are implying.

You accuse me of adding"my own words to scripture," but that is exactly what you have done here. There is absolutely zero mention of "all the tribes of Israel" anywhere in this passage, But "all the house of Israel, even all of it" clearly means absolutely all.

Rev20 said:
Isaiah stated, about as plainly as any prophecy has been stated, that only a remnant SHALL return:

"For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness." -- Isa 10:22
Biblewriter, that prophecy also means, the rest SHALL NOT return. We know from the New Covenant that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (Rom 9:6,)" and they are not all children of Abraham who are the natural seed of Abraham, or even Jacob (Rom 9:7-8, Luke 3:8, John 8:39, 43-45; Rom 2:28-29; and Phil 3:3.) We also know this to be true:

"In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." -- Isa 45:25 KJV

The apparent contradiction here is not resolved by ignoring one of the two statements, but rather by comparing other relevalt statements.

We also read, "Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks." (Jeremiah 16:16)

And:

"And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out." (Ezekiel 20:34)

But the Ezekiel 20 passage goes on to say:

"And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD." (Ezekiel 20:35-38)

These shows how those who enter the land can be both a remnant and "all the house of Israel, even all of it." For after the rebels, who will be most of them) are purged out, those left will be both "all the house of Israel, even all of it," and a remnant.

And Zechariah 12:10-14 clearly teach that all the rest will repent with bitter weeping.

Rev20 · Feb 4, 2015

Biblewriter said:
You accuse me of adding"my own words to scripture," but that is exactly what you have done here. There is absolutely zero mention of "all the tribes of Israel" anywhere in this passage, But "all the house of Israel, even all of it" clearly means absolutely all.

Biblewriter, the reason I stated you are "adding words to the scripture" is because you refuse to recognize the New Testament scriptures that declare that "all Israel" is not "all Israel;" declared not just by Paul, but also by Christ. In the context in which you presented your argument, you most definitely "added words" that were never there, nor intended.
.

Biblewriter said:
The apparent contradiction here is not resolved by ignoring one of the two statements, but rather by comparing other relevalt statements.

We also read, "Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks." (Jeremiah 16:16)

And:

"And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out." (Ezekiel 20:34)

That is exactly what Christ and his disciples did, as well as the early Christian Jews who were "disciples of the disciples." They were sent after the scattered lost sheep, and found them:

"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience." -- Jas 1:1-3

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." -- 1Pet 1:1-2 KJV

"Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." -- 1Pet 2:11-12

"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." -- 1Pet 2:25

"But [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 15:24

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" -- John 10:27

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matt 10:5-6

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." -- Matt 10:22-23

.

Biblewriter said:
But the Ezekiel 20 passage goes on to say:

"And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord GOD. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the LORD." (Ezekiel 20:35-38)

These shows how those who enter the land can be both a remnant and "all the house of Israel, even all of it." For after the rebels, who will be most of them) are purged out, those left will be both "all the house of Israel, even all of it," and a remnant.

Isaiah called it a very small remnant, Biblewriter, which is what I have been saying all along. You have been implying otherwise. This is Isaiah:

"Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah." -- Isa 1:9

Jesus found "all of Israel" in the first century. They were the only ones who kept His covenant, and heard his voice:

"And now if ye will indeed hear my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel." -- Exo 19:5-6 LXX

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" -- 1Pet 2:9

"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." -- 1Pet 2:25

John wrote that he was one of those royal priests:

"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." -- Rev 1:6

They were the chosen people ("all Israel") who established the Christian Church for the Lord.
.

Biblewriter said:
And Zechariah 12:10-14 clearly teach that all the rest will repent with bitter weeping.

It doesn't say that at all. It says they will weep; but it does not even hint that it would happened thousands of years after the fact, as you insinuate. Rather, it states they would weep and lament after they crucified Christ; which they most certainly did when He destroyed their cities about 40 years later, as prophecied in Matt 24:30 and Rev 1:7. That first century destruction of Jerusalem and Israeli cities by the Roman armies was also prophecied by Zechariah two chapters later:

"Behold, the days of the Lord come, and thy spoils shall be divided in thee. And I will gather all the Gentiles to Jerusalem to war, and the city shall be taken, and the houses plundered, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, but the rest of my people shall not be utterly cut off from the city. And the Lord shall go forth, and fight with those Gentiles as when he fought in the day of war." -- Zec 14:1-3 LXX

There is one glaring truth about Zechariah that you will seldom hear from the futurist, and that is the theme of the last chapters as established by New Testament authors:

Chapter 9: Christ rides into Jerusalem upon a colt (Zec 9:9 -- Matt 21:5; John 12:15)
Chapter 11: Betrayal of Christ (Zec 11:12-13 -- Matt 27:3-10)
Chapter 12: Crucifixion of Christ (Zec 12:10 -- John 19:32-37)
Chapter 13: Scattering of Disciples (Zec 13:7 -- Matt 26:31; Mark 14:27)
Chapter 14: Destruction of Jerusalem (Zec 14:1-3 -- Luke 21:20-25)
Chapter 14: The day of Pentecost (Zec 14:8 -- John 7:38-39)
Chapter 14: The Lord becomes ruler of all the earth (Zec 14:9 -- Ma 28:18; Acts 2)

That certainly appears to be a continuous theme, from the entry into Jerusalem by Christ, to the destruction of Jerusalem about 40 years later. I would recommend keeping close to that theme, established by Christ and the New Testament authors, when interpreting Zechariah.

Biblewriter · Feb 5, 2015

Rev20 said:
Biblewriter, the reason I stated you are "adding words to the scripture" is because you refuse to recognize the New Testament scriptures that declare that "all Israel" is not "all Israel;" declared not just by Paul, but also by Christ. In the context in which you presented your argument, you most definitely "added words" that were never there, nor intended.

Here you are doing exactly what you are falsely accusing me of doing. The scriptures simply do not say that "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

Rev20 · Feb 6, 2015

Biblewriter said:
Here you are doing exactly what you are falsely accusing me of doing. The scriptures simply do not say that "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

Are you trying to trap me in some sort of a semantical box, Biblewriter?

This is the scripture. I will let the reader decide. In this first example, Isaiah stated that all the seed of Israel would be justified:

"In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." -- Isa 45:25

But Jesus said to these Jews (seeds of Israel,) that they were not justified:

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. . . Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -- John 8:39, 44

Conclusion: "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

In this example, Paul stated that one is not a Jew due to genetics:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." -- Rom 2:28-29

Conclusion: "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

In this example, Paul stated they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" -- Rom 9:6

Conclusion: "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

Biblewriter, I don't seen any arguments against those scriptures. So your arguments against me can only come from the subjective position of semantics.

Biblewriter · Feb 8, 2015

Rev20 said:
Are you trying to trap me in some sort of a semantical box, Biblewriter?

This is the scripture. I will let the reader decide. In this first example, Isaiah stated that all the seed of Israel would be justified:

"In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." -- Isa 45:25
But Jesus said to these Jews (seeds of Israel,) that they were not justified:

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. . . Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -- John 8:39, 44
Conclusion: "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

In this example, Paul stated that one is not a Jew due to genetics:

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." -- Rom 2:28-29
Conclusion: "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

In this example, Paul stated they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" -- Rom 9:6
Conclusion: "all Israel" is not "all Israel."

Biblewriter, I don't seen any arguments against those scriptures. So your arguments against me can only come from the subjective position of semantics.

What the Holy Spirit was saying in these scriptures was that not all of the physical Israel is the real Israel, that the real Israel is the house of faith. This is the principle Jesus applied when He "saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, 'Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!'" (John 1:47)

Your problem is that you are simply ignoring other scriptures that plainly tell us that in a time to come, the physical Israel will be reduced to the real Israel, so the two will be the same.

Notrash · Feb 8, 2015

Has it been brought up that Ez 39:6 indicates that Magog is close to the isles of the sea which is often a reference ti the meditereanean.
Vs 4 & 5 indicate that magog is synonomous with the miuntains and fields of Israel.

In Gen 10 the area of magog seems in close associatiin with the areas of his brothers and cousins.

Notrash · Feb 8, 2015

Biblewriter said:
Your problem is that you are simply ignoring other scriptures that plainly tell us that in a time to come, the physical Israel will be reduced to the real Israel, so the two will be the same.

Thought that happened in the first century !!!! ????

Biblewriter · Feb 8, 2015

Notrash said:
Has it been brought up that Ez 39:6 indicates that Magog is close to the isles of the sea which is often a reference ti the meditereanean.
Vs 4 & 5 indicate that magog is synonomous with the miuntains and fields of Israel.

In Gen 10 the area of magog seems in close associatiin with the areas of his brothers and cousins.

You have repeatedly presented yourself as an expert in Biblical history. So how it is that you are ignorant of the fact that "the isles" was a generic term for the islands of the sea and for the lands beyond it. The steppe regions on the far side of what is now called the Black Sea, the ancient homeland of the Scythians, who are Magog, indeed qualify as "the isles."

Biblewriter · Feb 8, 2015

Biblewriter said:
Your problem is that you are simply ignoring other scriptures that plainly tell us that in a time to come, the physical Israel will be reduced to the real Israel, so the two will be the same.

Notrash said:
Thought that happened in the first century !!!! ????

The physical nation of Israel was most certainly never reduced to the point that all that remained were those who were faithful to their God. This did not happen in the first century or at any other time in history.

But God has told us that it will happen. So we know that it will happen some time in the future.

Notrash · Feb 9, 2015

Biblewriter said:
You have repeatedly presented yourself as an expert in Biblical history. So how it is that you are ignorant of the fact that "the isles" was a generic term for the islands of the sea and for the lands beyond it. The steppe regions on the far side of what is now called the Black Sea, the ancient homeland of the Scythians, who are Magog, indeed qualify as "the isles."

I have never presented myself as an expert in the details of biblical history as that is one of my weak points. I occassiinally get details wrong.

I believe I have an ability to glean the highlights and the countercovanental themes leading up to the "new" / everlasting covt, and to be able to 'see' the thread of the positive everlasting covt developed through history. And I believe I was taught the freedom to ask objective questiins of inductive type that are void of any previous agenda or bias. These both allow and result in interpretatiins and understandings which differ from yours and for which
we have disagreed. Another root of disagreement is based on hermeneutic principles, which differences we have previously exposed.

So then your saying that the jews will take the battle to those areas of magog ; (only magog ?) even though the armies gather around the mountains and fields of israel?

Nkjv and nasb use the word coastlands for isles; both here and in Gen 10. Where do you get the idea that 'isles' means the isles and the land beyond them???

So why is Ezekiel referring to the mountains and fields of israel (vs 4-6) in associatiin with the land of magog? Or is it only the people he's referring to? And does the fire only come upon the people (or land) of magog, or does it extend to those of cush, tubal, rosh, etc, etc.

Could former israelites of the assyrian dispersiin be among the intermarried and inter-racial people that would (will from your perspective) come upon israel??

In Gen 10; Kittim is thought by many from antiquity to be Cyprus and the Isles of the mediterreanean. Are the isles and ciastkands neccessarily of a different sea?

Is there other testimony from antiquity, the talmud or koran, sumerianns, babylinians, phonetians, etc about who /where Magog was?

Notrash · Feb 9, 2015

Biblewriter said:
The physical nation of Israel was most certainly never reduced to the point that all that remained were those who were faithful to their God. This did not happen in the first century or at any other time in history.

But God has told us that it will happen. So we know that it will happen some time in the future.

If "being faithful to God" meant being faithfull to the new words of the new covt administered by the new prophet of deut 18; Acts 3:22-24, then indeed this did occur i. the first century and those who where and are faithful to God left and leave the mosaic covt (Heb 10) and its principles.

There's a reason the new covt is the everlasting covt. The old does not return.

Biblewriter · Feb 9, 2015

Notrash said:
If "being faithful to God" meant being faithfull to the new words of the new covt administered by the new prophet of deut 18; Acts 3:22-24, then indeed this did occur i. the first century and those who where and are faithful to God left and leave the mosaic covt (Heb 10) and its principles.

There's a reason the new covt is the everlasting covt. The old does not return.

There can be zero question that at least almost none of the people who remained in Jerusalem were faithful to God. Yet many of them survived. It is true that almost all of the survivors were made slaves, but they survived.

So it is absolutely certain that at that time, the physical nation of Israel was not reduced to the point that it contained only the true spiritual Israel.

Notrash · Feb 10, 2015

Biblewriter said:
There can be zero question that at least almost none of the people who remained in Jerusalem were faithful to God. Yet many of them survived. It is true that almost all of the survivors were made slaves, but they survived.

So it is absolutely certain that at that time, the physical nation of Israel was not reduced to the point that it contained only the true spiritual Israel.

I do not think that perspective was prophecied. At the time of the latter end of the physical nation it was prophecied that some would be taken captive (deut 4:
27-31). But when they seek him while in other lands from their whole heart, they must seek him through the (now fulfilled) everlasting covt that was made with the parriarchal fathers; NOT through the mosaic covt that was made there that day and was NOT made with the fathers. (DEUT 5:1-5)

This is why you err in your understanding of rom 9-11. You assume or believe that the references to the patriarchs in early rom 9 is a reference to the promises of the mosaic covt nation. It (they) are not, but are a reference to evelasting covt elements to all mankind that were made through the patriarchs and available to all mankind including Israel of the flesh when they were fulfilled by Christs incarnatiin/indwelling.

But they are not part of the mosaic covt (deut 5;1-5) promises. Rom 9 continues by saying that they sought it by works or heredity or the law... etc..

Danoh · Feb 10, 2015

Notrash said:
...But they are not part of the mosaic covt (deut 5;1-5) promises. Rom 9 continues by saying that they sought it by works or heredity or the law... etc..

Note what Paul relates in Romans 2, that is actually the intended sense of Romans 9:32's "they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law."

Ive left out 26 and 27 because I am not here dealing with its theme.

Romans 2:

25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Paul is there relating an important distinction as to those things that differ between external performance of the letter of the Law, under the Law - the praise said external performance seeks being the praise of men - in sharp contrast to that external performance of the letter of the Law under the Law that is also accompanied by a proper heart attitude, spirit with which said external performance is walked in; an external performance of the letter of the Law that seeks the praise, "not of men, but of God."

Case in point Luke 1:

5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

In other words, their walk in all the commandments blameless was the issue of a walk in said commandments the heart attitude or spirit being one that sought the praise, "not of men, but of God."

That right there is a definition of whom of literal, physical Israel, was an Israelite indeed, or, the Israel of God.

That distinction as to those things that differ between those two established; note Pauls continuance as to this distinction between those two, in the following, as to Israel Romans 9:

30. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Although those of Jacob not the Israel of God had followed after the righteousness of the Law, they had not attained its called for righteousness because theyd sought it note - not by faith not as to the right heart attitude the praise of God, not of men - but as it were by the works of the law theirs had been external performance only; that sought the praise, not of God, but of men.

Paul then elaborates further on this heart issue under the Law - For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and note the heart issue again - whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Note how Moses did figure in this issue huge, big time, stop the presses, turn on the floodlights in the midst of darkness big time.

Ladies and Gentlemen Behold that Stumblingstone and Rock of Offence all Israel not of Israel not the Israel of God within that nation - is said not only to have stumbled over, but how specifically:

John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

They were so used to external performance only that men might see oh how so holy so and so is that when He Who they only professed with their mouth they were pinning [pie-ning] for appeared within their midst, they were proven by Moses in their Law himself guilty of self-willed blindness in their hearts!

The Truth can do that; set you free if your heart attitude is right; or cause you not only to stumble over Its Stumbling Stone, but take offence at the tremendous Offence its Rock solid Truth can result in when your heart attitude is anything but whose praise is, not of men, but of God.

By the way, that course of Abia, together with its other courses, was by that time practiced where - in the Temple at Jerusalem - a Temple desolate of the Shekinah glory long before Christ was even born - yet God still met with "the Israel of God" there.

Notrash · Feb 10, 2015

Don't forget the continued context of rom 3 where Abraham was declared righteous APART FROM the law. Performi.g the law even with a right heart does not, After Christ create a righteosness. It did not establish righteousness before Christ EXCEPT that it ws given forthem to perform in preparation fo messiah. So if they were performed before Christ and were performed in faith of his coming, then they would have been performing in faith.

A jew of the circuncision of the heart is one who believes in the new words of the new prophet and the law of faith that he is the fulfillment of the promise to mankind gen 3:15 and promisex through Abe/Sarah. The circumcision of the heart is the new covt and its new law.

I believe Abe/Isaac and Jacob where foreshadows of the tri-unity as were Jesse (or Samuel?) David and Solomin. Father Spirit; incarnate Sin; Indwelling Father/Son. Issac and David where foreshadows of the Son in this example of the trunity. Jesus establishes the tri-unity in Rev 22 saying I am the rootand iffspring of David. Well he is also David. This, I believe is also the picture of the olive tree in Rom 11. We only have the father through the son and the father and son both indwelling (branches)

I think that reference in Rom 2 abiut true circumcisiin is from Jeremiah or somewhere in the OT prophets.

Rev20 · Feb 10, 2015

Biblewriter said:
You have repeatedly presented yourself as an expert in Biblical history. So how it is that you are ignorant of the fact that "the isles" was a generic term for the islands of the sea and for the lands beyond it. The steppe regions on the far side of what is now called the Black Sea, the ancient homeland of the Scythians, who are Magog, indeed qualify as "the isles."

Biblewriter, that is not the way the scripture explains the "isles:"

"And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." -- Gen 10:4-5 KJV

Kittim is usually associated with Cyprus.

The location of Tarshish is unclear, but seems to be either Carthage (Tunisia) or southern Spain.

The location of Elishah is mentioned as either Cyprus or the Aeolians (islands north of Sicily,) and also northern Africa.

Dodanim is generally considered the islands around Rhodes off Asia Minor and east of Crete.

Throw away the oddball, southern Spain, and you are left with central to eastern Mediterranean islands or ports, as expected.

The Identity of Gog and His Allies.

Senior Member

Partial Preterist

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

Partial Preterist

Senior Member

Partial Preterist

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Partial Preterist

Similar threads