Can The State Of Israel Be Destroyed!

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,292
3,674
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The rapture Yes. > but there is a book in the bible that is called rev> and it has a progression!
What precisely do you believe that the Revelation tells us about "The Rapture"? I see no mention of it in My Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
12,292
3,674
70
Franklin, Tennessee
✟218,093.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And there is now nothing to prevent the 70th week from beginning
Except the fact that it came and went a couple of thousand years ago. According to Daniel, sacrifice and oblation will cease in the middle of the 70th week. If you'll notice, they did.

.... Israel is surrounded by the Muslims of the Middle East just as the prophets tell
Muslims in the Bible? What version are you reading?
 
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
One essential ingredient for the fulfillment of bible prophecies in the last days that was not present until May 14th, 1948, is the nation of Israel. Without the existence of Israel, the presence of the other signs would mean very little. The end time events revolve around this little country, which seems to be constantly in the news. It is important to understand that the rebirth of Israel was a prophetic event, predicted in the Bible, and brought forth by the direct will of God. To see that this is so, we must examine who it was that scattered the Jewish people and who would bring them back to the Land of Israel.

There are some who might say that the Jewish People have returned to the Land of Israel under their own power, and that they are not acting in accordance with God’s will. The Bible clearly tells us this cannot be so. Consider the following verses:

Ezek 39:27-29 "When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations." 28 "Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind." 29 "I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Amos 9:13-15 "The days are coming, declares the LORD, when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. 14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. 15 I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them, says the LORD your God."

Jer 30:2 "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,' says the LORD."
I guess this means you should throw Ezra and Nehemiah out of your bible. You speak as one lost in Hal Lindsey teaching.

Israel becoming a nation in 1948 means nothing as you're told in Ezra 1:1 that Jeremiah 30:2 was being fulfilled...but I guess you missed that, so I'll quote it for you:
Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying:

I'll let you read on from there. You do understand the captivity was the Babylonian captivity??? Perhaps not.

So much for 1948 thinking! Reading is definitely fundamental!
 
  • Like
Reactions: LastSeven
Upvote 0

A New World

Member
May 21, 2014
455
82
CA
✟8,451.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The point here is to the Galatian saints New World...so you're looking at it the wrong way. You cannot forget the issue here is Judaizers coming in behind Paul's teaching and trying to convince the Galatians they had to be circumcised. This is Galatians 2. The statement "you who desire to be under the law" is speaking to Galatian saints. Paul again addresses this in Galatians 3. One cannot divorce the full story behind Galatians, which is about Christians who where deceived into thinking they needed to keep the Law. Paul is saying absolutely not. The apostles addressed this in Acts 15.

What you are still missing is the fact that no one could have been under the Mosaic Law or be enticed to return to the bondage of the Law if the Old Covenant had passed away at the cross. The Mosaic Law and the Mosaic Covenant were synonymous. Those coming to Christ by faith were looking forward in hope of the full establishment of the New Covenant age. However, the Old Covenant age would continue until the end of Israel's last days generation.


Israel fell into the pattern long ago of thinking keeping the Law made them righteous. That's why they are in bondage. Many OT saints didn't fall into such a pattern. They understood the substitutionary sacrifices God prescribed for sin pointed to Christ, and they trusted in them by faith.

All of Old Covenant Israel was commanded to keep the Mosaic Law given at Mt. Sinai. All who were born under the Law were in bondage to it until they came to Christ and were justified by faith. There were those who remained under the Mosaic Law who were coming out of Old Covenant Israel throughout the terminal generation, the last days, of Old Covenant Israel. Paul is an example of one born under the Law, in bondage to the Mosaic Law, and under the Old Covenant until he came to Christ by faith. This is evidence that the Old Covenant remained until the age ended at the judgment of the harlot, mystery Babylon/Old Covenant Israel in AD 70.

Indeed..."present Jerusalem" is Israel still stiffnecked and blind, holding to an abolished covenant.

This is wishful thinking on your part. You are not understanding the text. Here is the passage once again:

Galatians 4:24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women ARE two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who ARE to be slaves; she IS Hagar.

25 Now this Hagar IS Mount Sinai in Arabia and CORRESPONDS to THE PRESENT Jerusalem, for she IS in slavery with her children.

Notice the present tense in the words I've capitalized. As I've pointed out continually, the Old Covenant was present as Paul wrote. It was, at that time, bearing children who were slaves. And he wrote, "Now this IS Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds (not corresponded) to the PRESENT JERUSALEM, for she IS in slavery with her children."

It was not about Israel mistakingly thinking she was under the Mosaic Law, in bondage to the Law, and under the Old Covenant. She was under the Old Covenant when Paul wrote!

Paul tells us Christ abolished it at the cross in Ephesians 2
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15 by
abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

The Mosaic Law/Old Covenant was NOT abolished at the cross (see above). Those coming to Christ by faith were no longer under the Law but were entering into the process of being built up into the temple of God (Eph. 2:21-22). God came to dwell in the temple after the Old Covenant passed away (Rev. 21:1-3).

Do you understand Christ on the cross is to reconcile BOTH Jews and Gentiles??? So why keep the Law...unless one is BLIND to the abolished Law by Christ? This is Paul's point consistently!!! I submit you have missed it. Romans 9:31-33:
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

Your proof text does not prove your point. It says Israel (Old Covenant Israel) did not arrive at the Law because they did not pursue it by faith.

My point remains. Old Covenant Israel continued under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant until they were judged for breaking the covenant, filling up the measure of their father's sins, and for their failure to come to Messiah. This did not occur at the cross but at the judgment of the harlot in AD 70. It's really not complicated at all.

You're adding reasoning the apostle never says...let the scripture speak! Paul says it again in Colossians 2:14, 15:
14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.


It ALL ended at the cross!

The penalty of the Law was "canceled out...decrees against US, which was hostile to US." The cross removed the curse of the Law from those who were coming to Christ by faith. This is not the same as your idea that the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant was removed and abolished at the cross. Many remained under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant and also under the curse of the Law until the age ended in judgment in AD 70.

I think I've pointed out very well the error of your thinking. I have never said Israel didn't have a last days generation. Jesus clearly said many times "this generation"...but the error of your thinking is that God was still honoring an abolished covenant.

No, what you've done is expose the error of thinking the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant ended at the cross. Israel's last days generation led to the end of the Old Covenant age which is the subject of the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24:3).

Israel was basically in the wilderness again!!! Yes the symbol of the Mosaic age along with Israel was judged in AD 70...but don't confuse that with God honoring a covenant He sent His Son to keep perfectly, and then sacrifice Himself to free Israel as well as all who would believe on Him!

I agree, Israel WAS in the wilderness again...weren't they under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant during their forty years in the wilderness? Though many died in the wilderness for lack of faith, weren't they under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant? Yes and yes!

Three thousand of Israel was saved on the preaching of Christ by Peter at Pentecost New World....that's ABSOLUTE proof of the faulty idea you have.

Those three thousand came out of Old Covenant Israel and were included in the remnant, the firstfruits, coming to Christ during the last days. That took place AFTER the cross. That's absolute proof that the Old Covenant continued until it ended in judgment at the end of the age.

We agree that many were coming to Christ by faith during Israel's last days. They were eagerly looking forward to, and hoping for, the soon arrival of the full establishment of the New Covenant age. Scripture is also clear that the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant remained until the end of the age in AD 70.

Scriptural eschatology is covenant eschatology.

The end spoken of throughout the New Testament was of the Old Covenant age. The church under the New Covenant never ends!
Ephesians 3:21 "to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen."


God bless you brother.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,561
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,792.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, a new world, at last someone to refute the preterists in a scholarly manner.
Whether they take any notice of anyone who opposes their theory, is another thing, but you have presented the truth.

An interesting anomaly you quote at the bottom of your posts. I see Revelation 22:10 as being said from a heavenly perspective and now, from hindsight, we know that really the time is near. Confirmed by Revelation 22:11 Meanwhile....
 
Upvote 0

Dave Watchman

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2014
1,420
603
✟67,573.00
Faith
Christian
Thanks, a new world, at last someone to refute the preterists in a scholarly manner.

Refute the preterists?

I thought that they were BOTH preterists debating each other about when the old Covenant ended.

Whatever, they don't have a hope when the Hal Lindsey guys show up.

That's What the End times are all about BABY> UNDERSTAND?>>>Enjoy!
 
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What you are still missing is the fact that no one could have been under the Mosaic Law or be enticed to return to the bondage of the Law if the Old Covenant had passed away at the cross. The Mosaic Law and the Mosaic Covenant were synonymous. Those coming to Christ by faith were looking forward in hope of the full establishment of the New Covenant age. However, the Old Covenant age would continue until the end of Israel's last days generation.
Obviously the Mosaic Law and Covenant are the same thing...no one is arguing the point. The point of contention is that in your statement above Paul clearly says that was the case! Galatians 3:1-5
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you:
did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3 Are you so foolish?
Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

So already, in the above passage you see your above statement is wrong! That's exactly why Paul wrote Galatians. He says so clearly also in Galatians 6:11-13:

11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
13
For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.


Is that not Paul telling the Galatians saints they did not have to keep the Law???

All of Old Covenant Israel was commanded to keep the Mosaic Law given at Mt. Sinai. All who were born under the Law were in bondage to it until they came to Christ and were justified by faith. There were those who remained under the Mosaic Law who were coming out of Old Covenant Israel throughout the terminal generation, the last days, of Old Covenant Israel. Paul is an example of one born under the Law, in bondage to the Mosaic Law, and under the Old Covenant until he came to Christ by faith. This is evidence that the Old Covenant remained until the age ended at the judgment of the harlot, mystery Babylon/Old Covenant Israel in AD 70.
Yet you CANNOT show anywhere where this is the case. Just as I have showed you even the OC was a matter of faith.

One more time I point to Paul saying why Israel failed...Romans 9:30-33:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33
just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

Until you grasp that even the Law was to be done in faith, you're going to keep the line of thinking you have. Paul clearly says Israel failed because THEY DID NOT PURSUE righteousness under the Law BY FAITH!!!

The OT is loaded with passages showing even the OC was to be done in faith. How could Habakkuk 2:4 say this in the OC?:


4 “Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.
This is wishful thinking on your part. You are not understanding the text. Here is the passage once again:

Galatians 4:24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women ARE two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who ARE to be slaves; she IS Hagar.

25 Now this Hagar IS Mount Sinai in Arabia and CORRESPONDS to THE PRESENT Jerusalem, for she IS in slavery with her children.

Notice the present tense in the words I've capitalized. As I've pointed out continually, the Old Covenant was present as Paul wrote. It was, at that time, bearing children who were slaves. And he wrote, "Now this IS Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds (not corresponded) to the PRESENT JERUSALEM, for she IS in slavery with her children."

It was not about Israel mistakingly thinking she was under the Mosaic Law, in bondage to the Law, and under the Old Covenant. She was under the Old Covenant when Paul wrote!


The Mosaic Law/Old Covenant was NOT abolished at the cross (see above). Those coming to Christ by faith were no longer under the Law but were entering into the process of being built up into the temple of God (Eph. 2:21-22). God came to dwell in the temple after the Old Covenant passed away (Rev. 21:1-3).

Your proof text does not prove your point. It says Israel (Old Covenant Israel) did not arrive at the Law because they did not pursue it by faith.

My point remains. Old Covenant Israel continued under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant until they were judged for breaking the covenant, filling up the measure of their father's sins, and for their failure to come to Messiah. This did not occur at the cross but at the judgment of the harlot in AD 70. It's really not complicated at all.
It's not a proof text at all when you hold the context, which you do not. What you do is REASON in your thinking of what the passage is saying.
Once again Romans 9:30-33:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33
just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”


Once again also...you must then tear Hebrews 11 out of your bible as it list OT saints that had FAITH and did not pursue righteousness by the Law. Then again why does Paul quote Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:16, 17???

The obvious point is that the OC Law was to be done in FAITH. If this is not the case How does Jesus say of Abraham in John 8:56

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

Paul then...in Romans 4:1-8 totally refutes your thinking DECLARING Abraham had FAITH. For brevity I'll only quote the question...Romans 4:1, 2:
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God

The case is then made that NO ONE is justified by works...so once again the Law was to be pursued by FAITH...and that is Israel's failure...and the error of your thinking.
The penalty of the Law was "canceled out...decrees against US, which was hostile to US." The cross removed the curse of the Law from those who were coming to Christ by faith. This is not the same as your idea that the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant was removed and abolished at the cross. Many remained under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant and also under the curse of the Law until the age ended in judgment in AD 70.
Does Paul say the "penalty of the law" in either of those passages? NO! What he clearly says is..."Christ ABOLISHED in His flesh the enmity"...what was the enmity? Paul tells you what it was..."the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained IN ORDINANCES".

Where are those ordinances written New World? They start at Exodus 20 and end at Exodus 24...which is the Mosaic Law, Mosaic Covenant, the Law, the Old Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant...whatever you want to call them! Paul declared them to be ABOLISHED at the cross! You can try to explain it away...but Paul said it was ABOLISHED!
No, what you've done is expose the error of thinking the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant ended at the cross. Israel's last days generation led to the end of the Old Covenant age which is the subject of the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24:3).
The Olivet discourse answers a question asked of Jesus, of when the temple would be destroyed. Isn't it interesting NOT ONE WORD about an "Old Covenant age " is in it???

AAMOF, Jesus had already declared Israel's house (temple) to be DESOLATE at Matthew 23:37-39
I agree, Israel WAS in the wilderness again...weren't they under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant during their forty years in the wilderness? Though many died in the wilderness for lack of faith, weren't they under the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant? Yes and yes!
Actually Yes and NO. Israel continued Old Covenant practices, because they could NOT see Christ as their Messiah and the rejected Him and the New Covenant in preference to the Old Covenant...which was ABOLISHED at the cross.
Those three thousand came out of Old Covenant Israel and were included in the remnant, the firstfruits, coming to Christ during the last days. That took place AFTER the cross. That's absolute proof that the Old Covenant continued until it ended in judgment at the end of the age.
After the cross begins the New Covenant New World! Which is why Jesus had it occur at Pentecost. The New Covenant is declared in Jerusalem FIRST...just as Jesus said. You're right...the remnant of Israel comes in...THOSE who clearly saw through Peter's preaching that Christ was THE END OF THE LAW.
We agree that many were coming to Christ by faith during Israel's last days. They were eagerly looking forward to, and hoping for, the soon arrival of the full establishment of the New Covenant age. Scripture is also clear that the Mosaic Law/Old Covenant remained until the end of the age in AD 70.
The difference in this is HOW the OC remained...and Jesus said it real clear in Matthew 23:37-39 and Luke 19:41-44!
Scriptural eschatology is covenant eschatology.
That's right...but it understands Christ abolished one to institute the other. The error you make is shown in Hebrews 9 and 10 as the writer shows Christ ends one at His death and institutes the other. Hebrews 9:11, 12:
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;
12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.


The Law ENDS at the cross!
The end spoken of throughout the New Testament was of the Old Covenant age. The church under the New Covenant never ends!
Ephesians 3:21 "to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen."
No. Once again, there is a HUGE difference in the end of the Old Covenant at the cross...and a blind Israel continuing to practice the Old Covenant because they are blind to Christ. What Israel was doing is what's called DEAD WORKS!
God bless you brother.
You also brother! I give you the last word on this in your next post, and I'm done with it. We're clearly at an impasse, but I know you're a brother in the Lord.

The time is coming when we will know even as we are known!
 
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Refute the preterists?

I thought that they were BOTH preterists debating each other about when the old Covenant ended.

Whatever, they don't have a hope when the Hal Lindsey guys show up.

That's What the End times are all about BABY> UNDERSTAND?>>>Enjoy!
The problem is I've so many time showed Keras that his *ideas* of prophecy are a dead end, that he just jumped in not even understanding what the debate is about.

Also I won't speak for New World, but I am not as you say "a preterist". I do accept that of "partial preterism" that I believe to be scriptural...but I also accept that of amillennialism that I hold to be scriptural.

I do not hold to ANYTHING of dispensational eschatology *except* that Christ will return and judge the world in righteousness.
 
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

A New World

Member
May 21, 2014
455
82
CA
✟8,451.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Obviously the Mosaic Law and Covenant are the same thing...no one is arguing the point. The point of contention is that in your statement above Paul clearly says that was the case! Galatians 3:1-5
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you:
did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3 Are you so foolish?
Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

So already, in the above passage you see your above statement is wrong! That's exactly why Paul wrote Galatians. He says so clearly also in Galatians 6:11-13:

11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
13
For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.


Is that not Paul telling the Galatians saints they did not have to keep the Law???


Yet you CANNOT show anywhere where this is the case. Just as I have showed you even the OC was a matter of faith.

One more time I point to Paul saying why Israel failed...Romans 9:30-33:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33
just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

Until you grasp that even the Law was to be done in faith, you're going to keep the line of thinking you have. Paul clearly says Israel failed because THEY DID NOT PURSUE righteousness under the Law BY FAITH!!!

The OT is loaded with passages showing even the OC was to be done in faith. How could Habakkuk 2:4 say this in the OC?:


4 “Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.

It's not a proof text at all when you hold the context, which you do not. What you do is REASON in your thinking of what the passage is saying.
Once again Romans 9:30-33:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33
just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”


Once again also...you must then tear Hebrews 11 out of your bible as it list OT saints that had FAITH and did not pursue righteousness by the Law. Then again why does Paul quote Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:16, 17???

The obvious point is that the OC Law was to be done in FAITH. If this is not the case How does Jesus say of Abraham in John 8:56

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

Paul then...in Romans 4:1-8 totally refutes your thinking DECLARING Abraham had FAITH. For brevity I'll only quote the question...Romans 4:1, 2:
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God

The case is then made that NO ONE is justified by works...so once again the Law was to be pursued by FAITH...and that is Israel's failure...and the error of your thinking.

Does Paul say the "penalty of the law" in either of those passages? NO! What he clearly says is..."Christ ABOLISHED in His flesh the enmity"...what was the enmity? Paul tells you what it was..."the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained IN ORDINANCES".

Where are those ordinances written New World? They start at Exodus 20 and end at Exodus 24...which is the Mosaic Law, Mosaic Covenant, the Law, the Old Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant...whatever you want to call them! Paul declared them to be ABOLISHED at the cross! You can try to explain it away...but Paul said it was ABOLISHED!

I believe I have previously answered all of the objections you've restated here so there's no reason to go over them again.

The Olivet discourse answers a question asked of Jesus, of when the temple would be destroyed. Isn't it interesting NOT ONE WORD about an "Old Covenant age " is in it???

Not one word? Really? The entire context of the Olivet Discourse was the end of the age:

Matthew 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"(NASB)

Matthew 24:3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, 'Tell us, when shall these be? and what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'(YLT)

At the time the questions were posed the disciples were living under the Mosaic Law during the time of the Old Covenant age anticipating the New Covenant age to follow. Jesus posited the end of the age at the destruction of Jerusalem. Those who would come to Christ during the transition period would be partaking in the New Covenant age by faith while awaiting its full arrival.

When the apostles wrote about the "present age" (Titus 2:12), "present time" (Rom. 8:18; 11:5; Heb. 9:9), "present distress" (1 Cor. 7:26), "present evil age" (Gal. 1:4), "present Jerusalem" (Gal. 4:25), "present world" (1 Tim. 6:17), they referred to the Old Covenant age which was about to pass away.

This is absolute proof that the Old Covenant did not pass away until the destruction of Jerusalem just as Jesus prophesied (Mt. 24:3).

AAMOF, Jesus had already declared Israel's house (temple) to be DESOLATE at Matthew 23:37-39

Yes, the declaration was made at that time but it would be fulfilled at the destruction of the temple.

Luke 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near."

Revelation 17:16 (NASB) 16 "And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire."

As the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem those who recognized the signs given by Jesus knew the desolation of Old Covenant Israel was near. It was the beast, the Roman Empire, that would bring about the desolation as God used it as an instrument of His judgment on the harlot.

I give you the last word on this in your next post, and I'm done with it. We're clearly at an impasse, but I know you're a brother in the Lord.

Thank you. I respect your opinion and also consider you a brother in the Lord. I also appreciate your attitude and the true spirit of Christ you displayed throughout this discussion.
 
Upvote 0

A New World

Member
May 21, 2014
455
82
CA
✟8,451.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Refute the preterists?

I thought that they were BOTH preterists debating each other about when the old Covenant ended.

Whatever, they don't have a hope when the Hal Lindsey guys show up.


The Hal Lindsey guys? Are there still people who think he has credibility?


That's What the End times are all about BABY> UNDERSTAND?>>>Enjoy!

Yes, it was about the end times.

The apostles made it very clear that they were living in the last days (Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 2:1; Heb. 1:2; James 5:3).

They were living in the last time (1 Pet. 1:5; Jude 18).

John even said they knew they were living during the last hour (1 Jn. 2:18) and the time was near (Rev. 1:3; 22:10).
 
Upvote 0

A New World

Member
May 21, 2014
455
82
CA
✟8,451.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
An interesting anomaly you quote at the bottom of your posts. I see Revelation 22:10 as being said from a heavenly perspective and now, from hindsight, we know that really the time is near. Confirmed by Revelation 22:11 Meanwhile....

I think it's important to remember John's audience as identified in Revelation. It seems to me it's written to those of an earthly, not a heavenly, perspective.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Revelation 1:4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne

John told THEM the things he would show them "must soon take place...for the time is near."

Revelation 22:6 And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place.

Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near."

Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

Revelation 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

I believe there is every reason to think John is reiterating his words from chapter one to the same audience. I think this is evidence that God told him to communicate to a specific people about the timing of specific events.
 
Upvote 0

Ranting

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
435
28
64
✟1,131.00
Faith
Christian
just Luv it!> No Israel can not be destroyed because it has to go through Jacobs troubles to be as gold! You people can say all you want but God Has His final plan with Israel
Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

12:11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

12:12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;

12:13 The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart;

12:14 All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart.

And All Israel shall be saved!>Enjoy
 
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

Ranting

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2015
435
28
64
✟1,131.00
Faith
Christian
And God said, “Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him” (Genesis 17:19).
This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar – the LORD Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the LORD, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me” (Jeremiah 31:35-36).
Israel is an everlasting nation constituted by an everlasting covenant. The covenant the LORD made with Abraham and his descendants is an everlasting covenant which finds its fulfilment through Christ, the seed of promise (see Galatians 3:16). Most commentators agree that the covenant the LORD made with Israel at Mount Sinai is also an everlasting covenant, citing these passages in support: (Ex. 40:15; Lev. 16:34; Lev. 24:8; Is. 24:5). Long after he made this covenant with Israel the LORD said through the prophets that he would make a new covenant with Israel that would also be an everlasting covenant.Enjoy
 
Upvote 0

ebedmelech

My dog Micah in the pic
Supporter
Jul 3, 2012
8,998
678
✟187,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The big thing is that most people can not understand that the Church {BRIDE OF CHRIST} and Israel have two paths to walk! One raptured the other to go through Jacobs troubles. Why is it not called the churches troubles but Jacobs troubles???? Enjoy
No. What you have there is "the big fallacy". There's only one path! As soon as you can understand is all who trust in Christ Jew or Gentile, you'll be on the path to understanding why Paul says "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.

That is the failure of literal interpretation! You read a passage like Isaiah 49:1-4 but consistently don't get it:

Listen to Me, O islands, And pay attention, you peoples from afar. The Lord called Me from the womb; From the body of My mother He named Me.
2 He has made My mouth like a sharp sword, In the shadow of His hand He has concealed Me; And He has also made Me a select arrow, He has hidden Me in His quiver.
3 He said to Me, “You are My Servant, Israel, In Whom I will show My glory.”
4 But I said, “I have toiled in vain, I have spent My strength for nothing and vanity; Yet surely the justice due to Me is with the Lord, And My reward with My God.”

The other problem you have is understanding God fulfilled EVERY promise He made to Israel! Joshua 23:14, 15:
14 “Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed.
15 It shall come about that just as all the good words which the Lord your God spoke to you have come upon you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the threats, until He has destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you.


So...what are you *ranting* about????
 
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