Approaches to Eschatology

BABerean2 · Jan 2, 2019

YeshuaFan said:
Actually, we Calvinists would say that our theology derives form the same theology espoused by Apostle Paul and Jesus themselves in the Bible!
Reformed Baptists like myself hold to Calvinism as how the Lord saves us lost sinners as per the scriptures, but do not see the Second Coming as most Calvinists do, as A Mil, but as Pre Mil!

I have yet to understand how the doctrine of baby baptizers, who claimed to get their own children into the covenant through sprinkling, and who drowned some of the Anabaptists, came to be adopted by those who call themselves "Baptists".

The 1689 London Baptists took the Westminster Confession of Faith and tried to fix the document's errors on baptism, but ignored the documents claims that the 10 commandments were given to Adam before the fall.

Was God any less "sovereign" when he allowed Adam to choose to eat of the forbidden fruit, or did God make the choice for him?

Does God cause a pervert to rape and murder a 10 year old girl?

.

Biblewriter · Jan 2, 2019

claninja said:
Great, then show me were in Sennacherib's prism he explicitly lays out his path for conquering SPECIFICIALLY the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of Hezekiah's kingdom. So far you have not provided this evidence.

Neither did I say all 10 cities were fortified. However, I have shown, at least one of the cities was fortified

2 Chronicles 16:1 In the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign, Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.

Thus if all fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah were taken by Sennacherib, that would include Ramah, one of the cities in Isaiah 10:28-32. That means that Sennacherib's army was, in fact, near the cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32.

Where does the prophecy state 3 days?

This assumes that your assumption of the 3 days is the correct time frame.

My argument doesn't require that. There is a lot of fleeing done, thus Sennacherib could have easily conquered some of the cities without a fight. Maybe he didn't conquer all of them, but simply passed by or through them. The text isn't specific.

Isaiah 10:29-31 They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.”
Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Listen, O Laishah!
O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees; the people of Gebim take refuge.

It doesn't require a qualifier to make it absolute. there is no qualifier on the 'all' in genesis 1:21 and yet it is absolute as God did create absolutely all living things that move.

Genesis 1:21 So God created the great sea creatures and ALL (KOL) living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

I believe it absolute based on context: the specificity of the type of cities: fortified. ALL fortified cities, with the exception of Jerusalem, were taken by Sennacherib.

2 kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked and captured all the fortified cities of Judah

So in other words no, you can't provide scripture to support your assumption that not all of the fortified cities, with the exception of Jerusalem, were taken.

Wait, so now you do believe that all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah were conquered by Sennacherib?

Wait, so do you or do you not believe that Sennacherib's army came to the 10 cities listed in Isaiah 10:28-32? I thought this whole discussion is because you don't believe Sennacherib came to these 10 cities?

There is a lot of things in the Bible that Archeology has yet to corroborate, but we still believe the Biblical account.

Maybe I missed that part. What post # did you demonstrate that ancient Hebrews actually said about Isaiah 10:28-32 remaining yet to be fulfilled?

Correct, there are clear times when All means absolutely all and there times when all doesn't mean absolutely all. While a qualifier can help, it is not required. What determines the meaning of "all", whether absolute or not, is the context. And because the text is very specific with the types of cities (fortified) I believe the evidence points to absolutely all of the fortified cities.

For example did absolutely all the Egyptians come to Joseph. Most likely not. Most likely it would have been the representatives of the Egyptian families. the All is associated with Egyptian. Now if it said all the male Egyptians came to Joseph I would argue that is more specific and thus more evidence that the all is absolute.
Genesis 47:15 And when the money was all spent in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all (kol) the Egyptians came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? For our money is gone.”

Is the all in the case of the 1st born of Egypt dying absolute? I believe so based on the specificity: first born. Notice there is no qualifier with all.
Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all (kol) the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord.

So then what was the point of claiming my argument was "contradictory", if you also, like me, believe the Judah in this context consists of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin?

I never disagreed with the path set in Isaiah 10:28-32. I believe it fulfilled with Sennacherib's army. I disagreed with your time frame of 3 days. If this is in fact a day by day time frame, why wouldn't it be 2 days? Only one night is mentioned?

Isaiah 10:28-32
Day 1:
Assyria has entered Aiath and passed through Migron,

storing supplies at Michmash. They have crossed at the ford: “We will spend the night at Geba.”

Day 2:
Ramah trembles; Gibeah of Saul flees. Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim! Listen, O Laishah!

O wretched Anathoth! Madmenah flees; the people of Gebim take refuge. Yet today they will halt at

Nob, shaking a fist at the mount of the Daughter of Zion, at the hill of Jerusalem.

As you have not presented even one argument here that is worth answering, I am bowing out.

Biblewriter · Jan 2, 2019

BABerean2 said:
I have yet to understand how the doctrine of baby baptizers, who claimed to get their own children into the covenant through sprinkling, and who drowned some of the Anabaptists, came to be adopted by those who call themselves "Baptists".

The 1689 London Baptists took the Westminster Confession of Faith and tried to fix the document's errors on baptism, but ignored the documents claims that the 10 commandments were given to Adam before the fall.

Was God any less "sovereign" when he allowed Adam to choose to eat of the forbidden fruit, or did God make the choice for him?

Does God cause a pervert to rape and murder a 10 year old girl?

.

- And what is this supposed to have to fo with anything we have been discussing?

BABerean2 · Jan 3, 2019

Biblewriter said:
- And what is this supposed to have to fo with anything we have been discussing?

Probably 95% of the Christians in America interpret the Bible either through the lens of Reformed Covenant Theology, or modern Dispensational Theology.
Both systems tend to have a unique interpretation of eschatology.

Both systems must ignore Galatians 3:16-29, or see their doctrine fall apart.

.

Douggg · Jan 3, 2019

BABerean2 said:
Both systems must ignore Galatians 3:16-29, or see their doctrine fall apart.

I don't see your basis for that conclusion. What does the video got to do with the topic?

Put it in your own words why "both systems must ignore Galatians 3:16-29, or see their doctrine fall apart". Be specific.

claninja · Jan 3, 2019

Biblewriter said:
As you have not presented even one argument here that is worth answering, I am bowing out.

So in other words, you're not going to provide evidence to support your opinion. Classic dispensational response. but you are entitled to bow out.

Biblewriter said:
It leaves no room, for instance, for any fulfillment of the attack by "the Assyrian" whose daily progress is so precisely detailed in Isaiah 10:28-32. We know for a fact that no ancient Assyrian king attacked Jerusalem by following a route even approximately like this one.

You are the one who made the claim that no Assyrian king attacked Jerusalem by the route in Isaiah 10:28-32 as a fact. However, this is an unsupportable claim based on the evidence. We will just have to let the readers decide based on the evidence provided.

1.) Sennacherib's conquered fortified Cities and villages in the kingdom of Judah

a.) Sennacherib's prism does not detail the specific path he took to conquer 46 fortified cities and an un numbered amount of villages in Hezekiah's kingdom. So the annals of Sennacherib cannot be used as evidence to say it is a fact that no Assyrian king attacked Jerusalem by following a route as stated in Isaiah 10:28-32.
Sennacherib's prism column 3: I approached Ekron and slew the governors and nobles who had rebelled, and hung their bodies on stakes around the city. The inhabitants who rebelled and treated (Assyria) lightly I counted as spoil. The rest of them, who were not guilty of rebellion and contempt, for whom there was no punishment, I declared their pardon. Padi, their king, I brought out to Jerusalem, set him on the royal throne over them, and imposed upon him my royal tribute. As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 24200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird

b.) The biblical account in 2 kings 18 has Sennacherib capturing all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah. The path is not given in detail on how he conquered all the fortified cities in Judah, therefore this cannot be used as evidence to say it is fact that no Assyrian king attacked Jerusalem by following a route as stated in Isaiah 10:28-32.
2 kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked and captured all the fortified cities of Judah.

c.) These monuments don't list all 46 cities and un numbered villages that he conquered in Hezekiah's Kingdom.

Biblewriter said:
The monuments he left specifically stated the cities he captures during his advance. And these cities were along an entirely different route.

2.) 4 days?

Biblewriter said:
Day 1:

“At Michmash he has attended to his equipment.”

Day 2:

“They have taken up lodging at Geba.”

Day 3:

“As yet he will remain at Nob that day.”

Day 4:

“He will shake his fist at the mount of the daughter of Zion, The hill of Jerusalem.”

This passage describes a defeat of ten cities in only four days.

This seems to be an assumption. You are inserting days into this prophecy. There is only one evening mentioned.

Biblewriter · Jan 3, 2019

claninja said:
So in other words, you're not going to provide evidence to support your opinion. Classic dispensational response. but you are entitled to bow out.

You are the one who made the claim that no Assyrian king attacked Jerusalem by the route in Isaiah 10:28-32 as a fact. However, this is an unsupportable claim based on the evidence. We will just have to let the readers decide based on the evidence provided.

I presented a wealth of evidence of this fact, sufficient to convince anyone who was not blinded by prejudice.

1.) Sennacherib's conquered fortified Cities and villages in the kingdom of Judah

a.) Sennacherib's prism does not detail the specific path he took to conquer 46 fortified cities and an un numbered amount of villages in Hezekiah's kingdom. So the annals of Sennacherib cannot be used as evidence to say it is a fact that no Assyrian king attacked Jerusalem by following a route as stated in Isaiah 10:28-32.

Click to expand...

This is an obvious attempt to dodge the basic issue, which is the HARD FACT that Sennacherib did indeed list the cities he conquered along his path as he invaded Judea. And he listed them in the geographical order of their physical locations, north to south, as would be expected if he were reciting his path. What he did not list was his path after he got there, which you are deceptively arguing as a claim that he did not list the path he followed.

b.) The biblical account in 2 kings 18 has Sennacherib capturing all the fortified cities of the kingdom of Judah. The path is not given in detail on how he conquered all the fortified cities in Judah, therefore this cannot be used as evidence to say it is fact that no Assyrian king attacked Jerusalem by following a route as stated in Isaiah 10:28-32.

Click to expand...

2 kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked and captured all the fortified cities of Judah.

You have yourself admitted that the Hebrew word "kol" does not necessarily mean absolutely all. And you have yourself admitted that the Bible clearly states at least one exception to that word "kol," (all) in this particular sentence. Yet you want to cclaim that, aside from that stated exception its meaning in this sentence was "absolutely all." This is illogical in the extreme.

This seems to be an assumption. You are inserting days into this prophecy. There is only one evening mentioned.

I have clearly quoted the exact statements that establish the individual days involved. Your refuse to admit that has zero bearing on the facts.

What you are arguing is that "all" meant "absolutely all" in this particular sentence, even though you, yourself, admit that the scriptures explicitly state that it did not mean absolutely all.

And you are pretending that since Sennacherib must have actually come to this area, without a shred of evidence to back up that claim, than he must have followed the path specified in Idaiah 10:28-32, even though the scriptures plainly stated that when his troops came to Jerusalem, they came from the opposite direction.

BABerean2 · Jan 3, 2019

Douggg said:
I don't see your basis for that conclusion. What does the video got to do with the topic?

Put it in your own words why "both systems must ignore Galatians 3:16-29, or see their doctrine fall apart". Be specific.

The video explains the fact that both Reformed Covenant Theology and modern Dispensational Theology must ignore Galatians 3:16-29.

In verse 16 we find that the promise was made to the one seed (Christ), instead of the many seeds.
This verse kills Dispensational Theology.

Reformed Covenant proponents make the claim that the 10 commandments were given to Adam, before the fall.
Later in chapter 3 Paul says the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed could come to whom the promise was made.
This passage kills Reformed Covenant Theology.

Pastor John G. Reisinger went to be with the Lord a few days ago.

He wrote the book "Abraham's Four Seeds", which explains the Bible from a New Covenant perspective.
It reveals that the whole Bible is a book about Christ.
(See Genesis 3:15, and Luke 24:25-27.)

.

Douggg · Jan 3, 2019

BABerean2 said:
In verse 16 we find that the promise was made to the one seed (Christ), instead of the many seeds.
This verse kills Dispensational Theology.

Bab2, you need to identify what specific part of Dispenational Theology is killed by Galatians 3:16 (and other verses surrounding verse 16). Saying "Dispenational Theology" is too broad.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

How does dispensational theology conflict with that all who believe in Christ, Jesus gave power to become the sons of God?

I have never heard a dispensationalist deny John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

And I have never heard a dispensationalist say that we are not a new creation in Christ.

What's Galatians 3:16 got to do with dispensationalists recognizing that the church and Israel are distinctly different entities?

I am not seeing you presenting any argument to what specific dispensationalist belief counters anything in Galatians 3. Are you talking about the dispenstaionalist's view of history being divided up into blocks of time - one of which they call the dispensation of the law?

You need to clarify - what dispensationalist belief specifically conflicts with Galatians 3.

Be specific to what dispensational belief, and maybe a dispensationalist here, like James, can counter/respond to what you are claiming.

claninja · Jan 3, 2019

Biblewriter said:
I presented a wealth of evidence of this fact, sufficient to convince anyone who was not blinded by prejudice.

I agree that you provided some pieces of evidence that you believe support your position. But they don't make it a fact.

In post 221, Douggg, a futurist, stated based on the evidence that we both provided, leaned toward Isaiah's Assyrian as historic.

Biblewriter said:
This is an obvious attempt to dodge the basic issue, which is the HARD FACT that Sennacherib did indeed list the cities he conquered along his path as he invaded Judea. And he listed them in the geographical order of their physical locations, north to south, as would be expected if he were reciting his path.

This is not the issue at all. I agree that Sennacherib did list the cities he conquered coming from Assyria into Judah. This was never the issue. Since you quoted Isaiah 10:28-32, which is specifically a path in the kingdom of Judah, I was very explicit each time that I was discussing the path taken by Sennacherib to conquer 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages WITHIN Hezekiah's kingdom.

The true fact is, as you seem to admit below, is that Sennacherib never details the path of conquering the 46 cities and un numbered villages of Hezekiah's kingdom.

Therefore it cannot be stated as a fact that Sennacherib did not take the path as stated in Isaiah 10:28-32. You may believe your theory is supported by your evidence, but it cannot be proven based on Sennacherib's account. It is not a fact.

Biblewriter said:
What he did not list was his path after he got there, which you are deceptively arguing as a claim that he did not list the path he followed.

I have not been deceptive at all. Each time I have been very specific with the discussion. It has always been with regards to the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages WITHIN Hezekiah's kingdom. Which for some reason you keep deflecting back to the path he took from Assyria to Judea, which is not in Isaiah 10:28-32. Isaiah 10:28-32 is specifically about the path within the kingdom of Judah, not Ninevah to Judah. So it seems that either you are deflecting or for some reason not understanding that the path from Assyria to Judah is not the same as the path taken WITHIN Judah to conquer the 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages.

Since the issue we are discussing is whether or not Sennacherib took the path as listed in Isaiah 10:28-32, the evidence should focus on Sennacherib's path WITHIN the kingdom of Judah.

The path is not detailed in Sennacherib's Prism. It only states he 46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of Hezekiah's kingdom were taken
Sennacherib's prism column 3: As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number

The path is not detailed in Josephus' work. It only states Sennacherib took all the cities of the tribe of Judah AND BENJAMIN
Antiquities of Jews book X chapter 1: It was now the fourteenth year of the government of Hezekiah, King of the two tribes; when the King of Assyria, whose name was Sennacherib, made an expedition against him, with a great army; and took all the cities of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin by force

The path is not detailed in 2 kings 18. It only states Sennacherib took all the fortified cities.
2 kings 18:13 In the fourteenth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked and captured all the fortified cities of Judah.

The path is not detailed in 2 Chronicles 32. It only states Sennacherib laid siege to the fortified cities of Judah.
2 Chronicles 32:1 After all these acts of faithfulness, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and invaded Judah. He laid siege to the fortified cities, intending to conquer them for himself.

So to state is as fact that Sennacherib did not take the path listed in Isaiah 10:28-32 is false, as it cannot be proven, with the information we currently have, as to what path he took to conquer all/46 fortified cities and un numbered villages of the kingdom of Judah.

All we know, based on the evidence, is that Sennacherib conquered all/46 fortified cities and an un numbered amount of villages in the kingdom of Judah.

Biblewriter said:
You have yourself admitted that the Hebrew word "kol" does not necessarily mean absolutely all. And you have yourself admitted that the Bible clearly states at least one exception to that word "kol," (all) in this particular sentence. Yet you want to cclaim that, aside from that stated exception its meaning in this sentence was "absolutely all.".

Correct, I posted a couple of scriptures that showed "all" can be absolute and not absolute regardless of a qualifier. My argument was that the context drives whether "all" is absolute or not. So how do we determine if 'all' is absolute or not absolute? I argued specificity. Since it's not just "all cities" but "all fortified cities" the specificity adds evidence to it being absolute. The only exceptions would be if the scripture listed any fortified cities that were not taken.

Do you have any other arguments on how to determine whether "all" is absolute or not, when no qualifier is present?

Biblewriter said:
I have clearly quoted the exact statements that establish the individual days involved. Your refuse to admit that has zero bearing on the facts.

I'm not really concerned whether it's 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, 10 days. I'm trying to understand how you came up with 4 days, when only 1 evening is mentioned in Isaiah 10:28-32?

Biblewriter · Jan 3, 2019

BABerean2 said:
The video explains the fact that both Reformed Covenant Theology and modern Dispensational Theology must ignore Galatians 3:16-29.

In verse 16 we find that the promise was made to the one seed (Christ), instead of the many seeds.
This verse kills Dispensational Theology.

Reformed Covenant proponents make the claim that the 10 commandments were given to Adam, before the fall.
Later in chapter 3 Paul says the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed could come to whom the promise was made.
This passage kills Reformed Covenant Theology.

Pastor John G. Reisinger went to be with the Lord a few days ago.

He wrote the book "Abraham's Four Seeds", which explains the Bible from a New Covenant perspective.
It reveals that the whole Bible is a book about Christ.
(See Genesis 3:15, and Luke 24:25-27.)

.

More correctly, The video alleges that both Reformed Covenant Theology and modern Dispensational Theology must ignore Galatians 3:16-29.

Biblewriter · Jan 3, 2019

claninja said:
This is not the issue at all. I agree that Sennacherib did list the cities he conquered coming from Assyria into Judah. This was never the issue.

The basis of the entire problem has finally come out. I came arguing about potatoes and you answered with an argument about watermelons.

My point, from the very beginning, has been whether or not the path by which Sennacherib invaded the kingdom of Hezekiah corresponded to the invasion path defined in Isaiah 10:28-32.

You imagine that this passage describes operations within the nation after an invasion had become an accomplished fact. But this is erroneous. For the path defined in Isaiah 10:28-32 begins at the northern edge of the ancient kingdom of Judea and ends at Jerusalem. So I have been discussing this as an invasion path, and I contend that this is an obvious conclusion, reached by almost every scholar that has analyzed it.

What is known is that Senncherib invaded Judea by coming south along the seacoast, through the land of the Philistines, and entered Judea on its southwestern border. Then, after he had conquered southern Judea, he sent his armies north to Jerusalem. So Sennacherib's armies had to travel northward as they approached Jerusalem from the south. Both the accounts of Sennacherib and the scriptural accounts agree on this.

The account in Isaiah 10:28-32 describes a totally different invasion, in which the attacker will enter the kingdom, not on its southwestern border, but near the center of its northern border. And then advancing on Jerusalem by traveling south along the mountainous ridge at the center of the nation. This invasion path is totally different from the one Sennacherib followed.

You have been arguing about what Sennacherib did after he reached the southern portion of the kingdom, seemingly pushing a totally baseless theory about him having first conquered the southern region, then having gone back to the northern edge of the kingdom, and from there having returned along this path to Jerusalem. But there is absolutely zero Biblical, historical, or archeological basis for such a theory.

And your argument about the word "all" is no more logically sound. You have admitted that the Hebrew word translated "all" is not necessarily absolute. Yet you keep insisting that this time it is absolute, even after you have admitted that the scriptures plainly declare that this time it was not absolute. For the scriptures themselves explicitly say that there was an exception to this usage of the word "all."

BABerean2 · Jan 3, 2019

Douggg said:
What's Galatians 3:16 got to do with dispensationalists recognizing that the church and Israel are distinctly different entities?

Dispensationalists often claim the promise made to Abraham was made to modern Jews, who would be the many seeds.

In Galatians 3:16 Paul said the promise was made only to Christ, who is the one seed.

What do you not understand?

.

food4thought · Jan 3, 2019

Biblewriter said:
The basis of the entire problem has finally come out. I came arguing about potatoes and you answered with an argument about watermelons.

My point, from the very beginning, has been whether or not the path by which Sennacherib invaded the kingdom of Hezekiah corresponded to the invasion path defined in Isaiah 10:28-32.

You imagine that this passage describes operations within the nation after an invasion had become an accomplished fact. But this is erroneous. For the path defined in Isaiah 10:28-32 begins at the northern edge of the ancient kingdom of Judea and ends at Jerusalem. So I have been discussing this as an invasion path, and I contend that this is an obvious conclusion, reached by almost every scholar that has analyzed it.

I see it more clearly now, Biblewriter. To be fair to Claninja, I was having trouble seeing the argument as well. This, along with the absence of archaeological evidence for troop activity in the north during Sennacherib's time does give your argument weight. I think I am convinced.

Douggg · Jan 3, 2019

BABerean2 said:
Dispensationalists often claim the promise made to Abraham was made to modern Jews, who would be the many seeds.

In Galatians 3:16 Paul said the promise was made only to Christ, who is the one seed.

What do you not understand?

.

Be more specific, what promise are dispensationalists claiming to "modern Jews"?

Are you sure that dispensationalists are not talking about promises made to Israel - through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ? And in the many prophecies in the old testament?

In Galatians 3:16 Paul said the promise was made only to Christ, who is the one seed.

"the promise" - be specific. What promise?

BABerean2 · Jan 3, 2019

Douggg said:
Be more specific, what promise are dispensationalists claiming to "modern Jews"?

Are you sure that dispensationalists are not talking about promises made to Israel - through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ? And in the many prophecies in the old testament?

"the promise" - be specific. What promise?

Based on 1 John 2:22-23, there is no Israel that rejects Christ.
Anyone who rejects Christ is "antichrist".

The promise found below.

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

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

.

keras · Jan 3, 2019

Douggg said:
Be more specific, what promise are dispensationalists claiming to "modern Jews"?

Are you sure that dispensationalists are not talking about promises made to Israel - through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ? And in the many prophecies in the old testament?
"the promise" - be specific. What promise?

"Modern' Jews are the people to whom Jesus said; Those who call themselves Jews, but are not. Revelation 2:9
They are not true Jews for 2 reasons; as stated in Romans 2:29 and the fact that Jews or Israelis, today are just a mixed race of peoples, the same as every other nation is. They have no proof of descent from Judah or Jacob.

God Promises are all thru Jesus and as His followers, we are the inheritor's. Ephesians 1:10-14 & 3:6, Romans 8:16-18, Titus 3:5-7, +
Believing that the Jews of today have any special place in God's heart, is error and made just to suit the false 'rapture to heaven' doctrine.

Douggg · Jan 3, 2019

BABerean2 said:
Based on 1 John 2:22-23, there is no Israel that rejects Christ.
Anyone who rejects Christ is "antichrist".

What has that got to do with any specific dispensationalist belief?

BABerean2 said:
The promise found below.

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

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

What promise is Gal 3:29 referring to?

And isn't Hebrew 11:16 talking about heaven?

Bab2, you are not making any case against any specific dispensationalist belief, that I can see.

Douggg · Jan 3, 2019

keras said:
"Modern' Jews are the people to whom Jesus said; Those who call themselves Jews, but are not. Revelation 2:9
They are not true Jews for 2 reasons; as stated in Romans 2:29 and the fact that Jews or Israelis, today are just a mixed race of peoples, the same as every other nation is. They have no proof of descent from Judah or Jacob.

God Promises are all thru Jesus and as His followers, we are the inheritor's. Ephesians 1:10-14 & 3:6, Romans 8:16-18, Titus 3:5-7, +
Believing that the Jews of today have any special place in God's heart, is error and made just to suit the false 'rapture to heaven' doctrine.

Too much evidence to counter your interpretation and rationale.

Israel a nation in 1948.
History of Jews being dispersed into the nations
Jerusalem in the hands of the Jews in 1967
Gog/Magog nations in Syria and alignment.

BABerean2 · Jan 3, 2019

Douggg said:
Israel a nation in 1948.

One of the greatest deceptions in the history of the Church, based on 1 John 2:22-23.

.

Approaches to Eschatology

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Newbie

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Loving truth

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Newbie

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist

Newbie

Similar threads