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

jgr said:

How soon we forget. Post 403.

Note that "antecedent" appears in multiple categories, of which one is "grammar":

"GRAMMAR
a word, phrase, clause, or sentence to which another word (especially a following relative pronoun) refers."

Click to expand...

Try as you might to separate “grammar” from “context”, I view everything I read from a face-value perspective and state any given case from a “contextual” standpoint, and that does include the “grammatical” details that cannot be separated from the “context” because it is the grammar that defines the context which then reveals the intended meaning of what is written. Let’s take at the following from post 403:


“The grammatical antecedents of "he" in Daniel 9:27 ultimately refer back to Prince Messiah in Daniel 9:25.”


This cannot be for the following:


1. Your attempt to connect the “he” of Daniel 9:27 to the “Messiah” in verse 25 is in violation of how you have defined grammar:


"GRAMMAR

a word, phrase, clause, or sentence to which another word (especially a following relative pronoun) refers."


The “he” in Daniel 9:27 does not follow after “Messiah” in verse 25. The only other figure to which the “he” in verse 27 can be best connected to is “the prince that shall come”. (Dan. 9:26)

Not only would a persistence in connecting the “he” in verse 27 to the “Messiah” in verse 25 be in violation of the rules of grammar as defined, it would also be taking the “he” out of its proper context.

2. The events pertaining to “the prince that shall come” do not take place until after “Messiah is cut off”. (Dan. 9:26) And from the prophet Daniel’s perspective at that given time, there was no possible way the Messiah could have been responsible for the events after His death because as far as His earthly presence was concerned, He had already left the scene for the time being.

Therefore, the events taking place after Christ’s ascendance into Heaven can only pertain to this “prince that shall come” who can be none other than the Anti-Christ and the covenant described in verse 27 is nothing like the New Covenant established by Christ. Only the Anti-Christ would enforce a covenant that, as pointed out in verse 27, ultimately fails because he never intends to honor it in the first place.

But Jesus always honors and will always fulfill His promises.

Contenders Edge said:

The “he” in Daniel 9:27 does not follow after “Messiah” in verse 25. The only other figure to which the “he” in verse 27 can be best connected to is “the prince that shall come”. (Dan. 9:26)

Click to expand...

You are correct. The "he" is connected to "the prince that shall come".

And the only individual identified as a prince anywhere in the passage is Messiah the Prince, previously in verse 25.

Thus, by virtue of the word "prince" in common, "Messiah the Prince" is the antecedent of "the prince that shall come", who in turn is the antecedent of "he" as you've observed.

Note also that the difference in capitalization, i.e. (P)(p)rince, is not significant. Christ is identified as a (p)rince in Revelation 1:5 KJV. And the original 1611 KJV capitalized (P)rince in both verses 25 and 26, signifying that it was to be understood as Messiah in both instances.

The above inter-verse connections are made grammatically via antecedents.

And the result is also tenable contextually.

Messiah the Prince did indeed come, fulfilling Daniel's prophecy, at the appointed time.

And the people of the prince did also indeed fulfill Daniel's prophecy.

The people of the prince (Daniel 9:26) refers to the Roman armies which were Messiah's agents and instruments to accomplish the judgment and destruction which had been prophesied. God's use of such instruments, and His characterization of them as "mine" even though pagan, can be found in several OT instances e.g.:

Jeremiah 25
9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

Jeremiah 43
10 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

God characterizes the pagan Nebuchadnezzar as "my servant" in using him and his armies against Judah and Egypt.

In the same way as Nebuchadnezzar, though a pagan, was God's servant in executing His judgment, so too were the pagan Roman armies Messiah's people in accomplishing His purposes.

In addition, the Jews themselves, as the historical people of Prince Messiah, were equally responsible for their destruction and suffering. Their own actions in defiling and destroying the buildings and temple prior to the Roman invasion are described by Josephus:

The Lamentation of Josephus
War 5.1.4 19-20

The darts that were thrown by the engines [of the seditious factions] came with that force, that they went over all the buildings and the Temple itself, and fell upon the priests and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, with their own blood. The dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves.
Oh most wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy internal pollutions! For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou longer survive, after thou hadst been a sepulchre for the bodies of thine own people, and hast made the Holy House itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine. Yet mayst thou again grow better, if perchance thou wilt hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of thy destruction.

As seen, Josephus recognizes the Jews as complicit agents of their own destruction, and that destruction as divinely orchestrated.

Contemporary Jewish historians concur:
"The scene was now set for the revolt's final catastrophe. Outside Jerusalem, Roman troops prepared to besiege the city; inside the city, the Jews were engaged in a suicidal civil war. In later generations, the rabbis hyperbolically declared that the revolt's failure, and the Temple's destruction, was due not to Roman military superiority but to causeless hatred (sinat khinam) among the Jews (Yoma 9b). While the Romans would have won the war in any case, the Jewish civil war both hastened their victory and immensely increased the casualties. One horrendous example: In expectation of a Roman siege, Jerusalem's Jews had stockpiled a supply of dry food that could have fed the city for many years. But one of the warring Zealot factions burned the entire supply, apparently hoping that destroying this "security blanket" would compel everyone to participate in the revolt. The starvation resulting from this mad act caused suffering as great as any the Romans inflicted."

The people, both Roman and Jewish, of the prince Messiah who was to come, were Messiah's agents and instruments in accomplishing His purposes of judgment and destruction upon those who had rejected Him.

Contenders Edge said:

There is no doubt about what the New Testament has declared fulfilled and done away with, and what has been carried over but to claim that the contents of a previous covenant have not been respecified, as you put it would imply uncertainty about what is applied or not applied to the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

Why would it imply uncertainty?

If something is not respecified in the New Covenant, it is certain that it does not apply to the New Covenant, consistent with the definition and operation of testamentary covenants.

Contenders Edge said:

Daniel chapter 9 is about a number of different events of which the first coming of the Messiah and His death are but one of a number events mentioned. (Dan. 9:25-26)

Click to expand...

Verse 24 below contains a summary of the prophecy.

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


Below we find the fulfillment of the New Covenant and the anointing of Christ by His Father.

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

I will ask you again.
Do you think the angel Gabriel failed to mention the New Covenant in Daniel chapter 9?

.

claninja said:

The agreement was made null and void. I'm not talking about what parts of the Law of moses are or are not in effect today. I'm talking about the agreement to obey those laws to receive blessings or disobey those laws to receive curses.



From my perspective the language you used and the way you typed your sentence made it appear that you concluded I believed all of the law was done away with. Since you established that you haven't concluded that I believe all the law was done away with, we can consider this matter settled.

You continue to provide "your interpretation" of romans 11 and romans 9:4-5, of which I disagree with. you have yet to provide even one NT scripture that clearly states land restoration is a part of the new covenant. You, then declare that "no NT scriptures ever exclude land restoration as it pertains to the Jews". This type of argument, is an argument from ignorance. It is a fallacy in informal logic.



Again, I am not trying to argue which laws of Moses are or are not in effect. The point this entire time is that the agreement to obey/disobey those laws in order to receive the blessings/curses of the law of Moses is no longer in effect.




I agree



I agree, it was only in place until the coming of Christ, the time of reformation

Galatians 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

Hebrews 9:10 They consist only in food and drink and special washings—external regulations imposed until the time of reform.



Christ was to come through the line of Israel, thus he kept a remnant and did not destroy them completely.




Only under the old covenant. The old covenant is now obsolete.



If the old covenant was still in effect, I would agree. But the old covenant is obsolete.



It's clear the new covenant was built on better promises. Why would the worse promises coincide with the better promises. Who would want the worse promises?

Hebrews 8:6 Now, however, Jesus has received a much more excellent ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is better and is founded on better promises.



That doesn't answer my question. Is the barn the physical land of Israel, heaven, or something else?



So it appears you agree that a remnant of Israel is related to all Israel.




The gathering of Jew and gentile to Christ is a literal gathering. The only other mentioned gathering in the NT is at the end of the age, and not of Israel back to the literal physical land as you presume. You still have yet to provide even one clear and specific NT scripture that mentions land restoration. So far your have only given your interpretation on NT that don't even mention land restoration.



Jeremiah states the opposite. In Jeremiah, God literally states he will sow both the house of Israel and Judah with the seed of man and of beast.

Jeremiah 31:27 The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and of beast. just as I watched over them to uproot and tear them down, to demolish, destroy, and bring disaster, so will I be attentive to build them and to plant them,” declares the LORD.



So if "the days are coming when God would sow Israel and Judah among the seed of man and beast" is not about the good man sowing seed, then what is it about? Remember the sowing was to build them up, not to destroy them.

Click to expand...

“You…declare that "no NT scriptures ever exclude land restoration as it pertains to the Jews". This type of argument, is an argument from ignorance. It is a fallacy in informal logic.”



There is nothing ignorant or fallible in the logic of not declaring cancelled out that the New Covenant has not called cancelled out. I’ve already provided a basis for my position (Rom. 9:4-5, 8, 27, and chapter 11) which you admit you have already rejected, but in order to understand what Paul was referring to, we have nothing else to look to except what the Old Testament scriptures have to say pertaining to the nation of Israel as far as what blessings they would experience if they had remained faithful to God, the curses that would befall them if they did not, and the return of those blessings if they would repent.

Paul could not have pointed to any other scriptures to build his case for the either the Gospel or his hope that one day all of Israel would receive their Messiah. (Rom. 11:27) The Old Testament scriptures were all they had.



“The point this entire time is that the agreement to obey/disobey those laws in order to receive the blessings/curses of the law of Moses is no longer in effect.”



And now, it is applied to the whether or not they receive their Messiah. They, as a whole, rejected their Messiah and they suffered judgment because of it. But Paul believed they would receive the blessings meant for them if they did not continue in unbelief.



“Christ was to come through the line of Israel, thus he kept a remnant and did not destroy them completely.”



And He will still continue to preserve a remnant.




“Only under the old covenant. The old covenant is now obsolete.
If the old covenant was still in effect, I would agree. But the old covenant is obsolete.”



Again, you are declaring cancelled what the New Covenant has not declared cancelled and furthermore.



It's clear the new covenant was built on better promises. Why would the worse promises coincide with the better promises. Who would want the worse promises?


The earthly promises that are given to the Jews upon their repentance are not “worse promises” but different promises incorporated with their heavenly promises which they receive when they receive Christ. If they are as eternal as their heavenly promises (and they are) then they are not worse promises.



Is the barn the physical land of Israel, heaven, or something else?



The barn in that parable has to do with the world at large and not Israel. The wheat represent godly who dwell with Christ and the weeds who grew up among them are cast into the fire which is Hell.



So it appears you agree that a remnant of Israel is related to all Israel.



If in terms of spirituality yes and it will be so with the nation of Israel when Christ returns.



“The gathering of Jew and gentile to Christ is a literal gathering.”



It is not presently a literal gathering. It is a gathering in the sense that those of us who have receive Christ are spiritually of likemind yet we still remain dispersed throughout all the world. This gathering will manifest itself as a literal gathering when our Lord returns to gather the Church to Himself, but that is a different matter.


“God literally states he will sow both the house of Israel and Judah with the seed of man and of beast.”



Which will be accomplished in their homeland. Already is taking place.



“So if "the days are coming when God would sow Israel and Judah among the seed of man and beast" is not about the good man sowing seed, then what is it about? Remember the sowing was to build them up, not to destroy them.”



The parable of the good man sowing seed, to sum it up, is about the spreading of the Gospel which goes out to both Jew and Gentile alike. The preaching of the Gospel has generally been represented by the sowing of seeds. The wheat that grows up are those who have received the Gospel but the weeds represent those who have given themselves over to Satan. But before God can destroy the weeds, the wheat has to be removed first so that it is not destroyed alongside the weeds. It is all explained in that parable.

Contenders Edge said:

The earthly promises that are given to the Jews are not upon their repentance are not “worse promises” but different promises incorporated with their heavenly promises which they receive when they receive Christ.

Click to expand...

Does God have a different covenant with a group of modern people, based on who their mother and father would be?

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


.

jgr said:

Why would it imply uncertainty?

If something is not respecified in the New Covenant, it is certain that it does not apply to the New Covenant, consistent with the definition and operation of testamentary covenants.

Click to expand...

When it comes to wills and testaments written by men, it is because of things that have not been respecified when changes are made to a will that they are subject to be contested in a court of law. When something is not respecified, it can either be considered to still be in effect or not in effect depending on what the changes to that will have made plain. If that were not the case, that will could not be contested because there would be sufficient justification to contest it.

God has made plain to us what the New Covenant has cancelled out and what it has not and eventual “land restoration” for Israel is among the list of Old Testament elements that have been made obsolete and because it is not included in that list, we have no grounds to declare such to be cancelled.

BABerean2 said:

Does God have a different covenant with a group of modern people, based on who their mother and father would be?

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

.

Click to expand...

The promises inherited by Israel based upon the godliness and faith displayed by their forefathers and not merely on a blood line. This matter extends far beyond a mere genealogy: It is the integrity of God around which the fulfillment of promises to any people revolve. If the promises of our Lord to one group of people are no good, then His promises are no good to anyone.

BABerean2 said:

Verse 24 below contains a summary of the prophecy.

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.


Below we find the fulfillment of the New Covenant and the anointing of Christ by His Father.

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

I will ask you again.
Do you think the angel Gabriel failed to mention the New Covenant in Daniel chapter 9?

.

Click to expand...

No I do not. Daniel 9:25-26 alludes to it: The coming of the Messiah, the Messiah's death and the reason for His death.

LittleLambofJesus said:

The inferior OC Mosaic Priesthood was replaced by the NC Priesthood in Christ at the Cross and 70ad................

OC Mosaic Priesthood cursed forever?

Malachi 2
1 “And now, O priests, this command is for you. 2 If you will not listen, if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my name, says the Lord of hosts, then I will send the curse<3994> upon you and I will curse your blessings.
Indeed, I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart.
3 Behold, I will rebuke your offspring and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings,
and you shall be taken away with it

Luke 21:
11 “And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.
23 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great Distress in the land and Wrath<3709> upon this people.

Rev 18:8
“Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges[fn] her.

Hebrews 7:12
For being translated the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a translation is becoming.

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

.........The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover. At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival and the city was at this time crowded with Jewish strangers,...........

Meanwhile the horrors of famine grew still more melancholy and afflictive.
The Jews, for of food were at length compelled to eat their belts, their sandals, the skins of their shields, dried grass, and even the ordure of oxen.

For five days after the destruction of the Temple, the priests who had escaped, sat, pining with hunger, on the top of one of its broken walls; at length, they came down, and humbly asked the pardon of Titus, which, however, he refused to grant them, saying, that,
"as the Temple, for the sake of which he would have spared them, was destroyed, it was but fit that its priests should perish also:" -whereupon he commanded that they should be put to death. .........

Click to expand...

“Luke 21:

11 “And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven.

23 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great Distress in the land and Wrath<3709> upon this people.”



The only thing that without a doubt came to pass in that generation was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But the rest of the calamities foretold did not take place to the extent that they have taken place throughout history since the earthquakes, famines, and pestilences foretold were take place in various places. The Roman empire is only one place. And what out of the ordinary fearful signs took place in the heavens in those days? Even the famines and pestilences in the historical source you cited pertain to only one particular place.




“Rev 18:8

“Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges[fn] her.”




You could not be more wrong or more mistaken. Jerusalem is never called Babylon. Jerusalem’s desolation was only temporary and any hardship she is destined to face in the future will also be temporary. Jerusalem is presently alive and well. Jerusalem is destined to abide forever. (Jer. 5:10) Babylon’s final destruction on the other hand will be permanent.

Contenders Edge said:

When something is not respecified, it can either be considered to still be in effect or not in effect depending on what the changes to that will have made plain. If that were not the case, that will could not be contested because there would be sufficient justification to contest it.

Click to expand...

Not so. The creation of a new will and testament automatically revokes any old will and testament in its entirety, and that revocation is confirmed by inclusion of the following clause or its equivalent at the beginning of the new will and testament:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament".

Wills are typically contested when the mental soundness of the testator was in doubt at the time the will was written.

The inspired author of Hebrews declared the full revocation of the old will and testament by the new will and testament in no uncertain terms:

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is no doubt regarding the mental soundness of that Testator.

jgr said:

Not so. The creation of a new will and testament automatically revokes any old will and testament in its entirety, and that revocation is confirmed by inclusion of the following clause or its equivalent at the beginning of the new will and testament:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament".

Wills are typically contested when the mental soundness of the testator was in doubt at the time the will was written.

The inspired author of Hebrews declared the full revocation of the old will and testament by the new will and testament in no uncertain terms:

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is no doubt regarding the mental soundness of that Testator.

Click to expand...

If all things associated with the Old Covenant have passed away, then should I assume you believe that the Ten Commandments no longer apply us? Those were part of the Old Covenant. Or what about all the laws forbidding all forms of sexual immorality? Those were part of the Old Covenant. If we are going to interpret the passing of the Old Covenant according to the clause in a legal last will and testament that has been changed:



"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament".




How does that not end up being the logical conclusion? There are an increasing number of people within the Church that have justified sinful behavior according to how you are rendering the passages you have cited.

Contenders Edge said:

If all things associated with the Old Covenant have passed away, then should I assume you believe that the Ten Commandments no longer apply us? Those were part of the Old Covenant. Or what about all the laws forbidding all forms of sexual immorality? Those were part of the Old Covenant. If we are going to interpret the passing of the Old Covenant according to the clause in a legal last will and testament that has been changed:

Click to expand...

The battle between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant began in Acts chapter 15, and continues to the present. During most of the history of the Church the Judaisers have won the day.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


Based on the verse below the ten commandments are the Sinai Covenant.

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Based on Deuteronomy 5:1-3, the Sinai Covenant was not given at an ealier time.

The term “the moral law” is not found in scripture.
It is a man-made invention, not found in scripture, which is used in an attempt to get around Acts 15:24.


Are there are two different sets of commandments in the words of Christ found below?

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.


The New Covenant is a higher standard than the Old Covenant, not for our salvation, but for our conduct.

Matthew 5:17-20 is further explained by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:16-29. Here Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant. Paul said the law was “added” 430 years “after” the promise made to Abraham “until” the seed(Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

Later in Matthew chapter 5 Christ contrasts the two covenants below with the words “But I say…”


Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Mat 5:25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
Mat 5:26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.


Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mat 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.


Mat 5:31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
Mat 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.


Mat 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'
Mat 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
Mat 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.


Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
Mat 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Mat 5:40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
Mat 5:41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.


Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
Mat 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
Mat 5:47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
Mat 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.


Based on Hebrews 7:12, and Hebrews 8:6-13, nobody alive today has broken the now "obsolete" 4th commandment, which was the "sign" of the Sinai Covenant.
See Colossians 2:16-17 if there is any doubt.


The New Covenant: Bob George

.

Contenders Edge said:

“Christ was to come through the line of Israel, thus he kept a remnant and did not destroy them completely.”

And He will still continue to preserve a remnant.

Click to expand...

What scripture teaches this?

claninja said:

I have provided scripture that clearly and specifically states the old covenant has been made obsolete and was taken away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).

You, however, have stated that land restoration from the old covenant is still in effect, even through you agree the old covenant is no longer in effect. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to provide NT evidence that land restoration is still in effect.



You have provided "your interpretation" of NT scripture. I disagree with your interpretation. You have not provided even one NT scripture that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration. Since we disagree on "interpretations", scripture that is less debatable should be employed.

for example: Notice Hebrews 8 clearly and specifically says the first was made obsolete.
Hebrews 8:13 By speaking of a new, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

So, can you provide NT scripture that clearly and specifically mentions land restoration?



There is no NT scripture that even mentions land restoration, so how can I put forth scripture that explicitly states the land restoration no longer applies to the nation of Israel?

What the NT does mention, however, is that the old covenant was made obsolete and was taken away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).

We need to understand that there are unconditional promises (adam, Noah, Abraham, David) and there are conditional promises (old covenant with nation of Israel).

For example. The Abrahamic covenant is unconditional. God made several promises to Abraham that didn't require righteous works by Abraham. God alone passed through the animals to seal the covenant (genesis 15). Thus, Abraham did not need to perform anything on his side in order for God to act on His part to fulfill the promises. And as Paul states, the promises (PLURAL) are to Abraham and his offspring, who is Jesus.

galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,”g meaning One, who is Christ.

But the old covenant is not like the Abrahamic covenant. The old covenant required Israel to act (obey all of the law) in order to receive the promises of God. Unlike Abraham, blood was sprinkled on the people of Israel to seal the covenant (exodus 24). Thus, for God to fulfill his part of the agreement of the old covenant, Israel had to fulfill their part of the agreement. That is the agreement of both parties. If Israel would obey, God would bless. If Israel would disobey, God would curse. After the curses were poured, if Israel repented God would restore.

But God found fault in the 1st covenant on the part of the people, for they could not uphold their part of the agreement.

Hebrews 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second. But God found fault with the people and said:

So God made the old covenant obsolete. Thus the nation of Israel, nor God are required to uphold their end of the deal as it pertains to the old covenant. The nation of Israel no longer needs to obey all the laws of Moses in order to receive earthly blessings of the covenant. God no longer has to fulfill the earthly blessings to those who follow all of laws of moses.

The old covenant has been superseded by the new covenant, where our sins have been forgiven and all the righteous standards of the law have been fulfilled in us through Christ when we put our faith in Him. We are no free to love God and love our neighbor. We now receive better promises than the old covenant.




Right, my position is consistent, in that I do not believe Israel being recognized by other nations as an independent country fulfills prophecy. Thus I believe neither the Hasmonean dynasty nor 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy. You, however, draw an imaginary line and state the Hasmonean dynasty does not fulfill prophecy, while 1948 does. This type of logic is inconsistent.

When did Israel, the country established in 1948, repent and turn to God so that he would gather them back to Israel? This is the first requirement, under the old covenant before they woul be brought back into the land (Deuteronomy 30:2).

As we can see Deuteronomy 30:1-5 was fulfilled upon Israel's return from Babylonian exile. Jeremiah confirms that after the 70 years of Babylonian exile, when Israel would call upon the name of the Lord, He would restore their fortunes, and gather them from where they had been scattered to. This does not require Israel to be recognized as an independent nation.

Deuteronomy 30:1-5 When all these things come upon you—the blessings and curses I have set before you—and you call them to mind in all the nations to which the LORD your God has banished you, 2and when you and your children return to the LORD your God and obey His voice with all your heart and all your soul according to everything I am giving you today, then He will restore you from captivitya and have compassion on you and gather you from all the nations to which the LORD your God has scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the ends of the earth, He will gather you and return you from there. And the LORD your God will bring you into the land your fathers possessed, and you will take possession of it. He will cause you to prosper and multiply more than your fathers.

Jeremiah 29:10-14 For this is what the LORD says: “When Babylon’s seventy years are complete, I will attend to you and confirm My promise to restore you to this place. For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the LORD, and I will restore you from captivity and gather you from all the nations and places to which I have banished you, declares the LORD. I will restore you to the place from which I sent you into exile.”

The author of Chronicles confirms that the words of Jeremiah were fulfilled upon Israel's return from the 70 year Babylonian exile. This does not require that Israel be labeled as an independent nation by the Persian empire.

2 chronicles 36:20-22 He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years. Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing.




Per Jesus, God is spirit. I hold to the Trinitarian doctrine. I believe Jesus is God. I believe the Spirit is God. I believe the Father is God. I believe all 3 are one.

John 4:23-24 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Paul quotes from Ezekiel 37, which has its foundation in the law (Leviticus 26), as being fulfilled in the 1st century.
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people

Click to expand...

“There is no NT scripture that even mentions land restoration, so how can I put forth scripture that explicitly states the land restoration no longer applies to the nation of Israel?”


That being said, you cannot prove from the New Testament that eventual “land restoration” for Israel has been made obsolete any more than I can prove that has not been made obsolete.


“What the NT does mention, however, is that the old covenant was made obsolete and was taken away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).”


In order to establish what the writer of Hebrews had in mind, we have to take a look at the passages that proceeded and followed after the ones you cited and there is no mention of “land restoration” being among the things done away with. That isn’t even insinuated.


“Thus, for God to fulfill his part of the agreement of the old covenant, Israel had to fulfill their part of the agreement. That is the agreement of both parties. If Israel would obey, God would bless. If Israel would disobey, God would curse. After the curses were poured, if Israel repented God would restore.”


Now the blessings promised to Israel are tied to their acceptance of the New Covenant in Christ.


“But God found fault in the 1st covenant on the part of the people, for they could not uphold their part of the agreement.”


The Old Covenant was not a saving Covenant to begin with. Its purpose was to reveal man’s need for a Savior. It was never intended to be permanent because sin prevent man from receiving eternal life by it.


“The nation of Israel no longer needs to obey all the laws of Moses in order to receive earthly blessings of the covenant.”


Haven’t you been maintaining that the earthly blessings have been made obsolete by the New Covenant?


God no longer has to fulfill the earthly blessings to those who follow all of laws of moses.


No one can follow all the laws of Moses any way.


I believe neither the Hasmonean dynasty nor 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy. You, however, draw an imaginary line and state the Hasmonean dynasty does not fulfill prophecy, while 1948 does. This type of logic is inconsistent.


Not if you compare the events of the Hasmonean dynasty with the events foretold in Ezekiel 37.


When did Israel, the country established in 1948, repent and turn to God so that he would gather them back to Israel? This is the first requirement, under the old covenant before they woul be brought back into the land



This is where we look to Ezekiel 37. Notice that the restoration of the nation takes place in a series of stages:



1. In Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones, the scattered bones are put back together and flesh and blood is restored to them, but the breath of life is not in them. It is believed that this implies a physical restoration. (This would be consistent with the re-establishment of the nation in 1948)

2. The breath of life enters into the bodies and they live. It is believed that this implies a spiritual restoration. (This has not yet manifested itself within the nation as a whole, but that is destined to change)



It would take an in-depth study to explain what Ezekiel 37 is talking about, but one thing is for sure, that Israel is once again a re-established nation; no longer divided into two houses as they were before, but are now one people as they were before they were divided into two nations after the death of King Solomon. That is a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s vision, but the next that is yet to happen is their reconciliation with God through Christ.

If the re-establishment of Israel as an independent nation is not preparing the way for the complete fulfillment of Ezekiel chapter 37, then what else could it be?



“As we can see Deuteronomy 30:1-5 was fulfilled upon Israel's return from Babylonian exile. Jeremiah confirms that after the 70 years of Babylonian exile, when Israel would call upon the name of the Lord, He would restore their fortunes, and gather them from where they had been scattered to. This does not require Israel to be recognized as an independent nation.”



Where in that passage does it state that restoration upon repentance would be a one-time only fulfillment?


“I hold to the Trinitarian doctrine. I believe Jesus is God. I believe the Spirit is God. I believe the Father is God. I believe all 3 are one.”



I hold to the Trinitarian doctrine as well. Therefore, that is not the issue at hand.

BABerean2 said:

The battle between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant began in Acts chapter 15, and continues to the present. During most of the history of the Church the Judaisers have won the day.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


Based on the verse below the ten commandments are the Sinai Covenant.

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Based on Deuteronomy 5:1-3, the Sinai Covenant was not given at an ealier time.

The term “the moral law” is not found in scripture.
It is a man-made invention, not found in scripture, which is used in an attempt to get around Acts 15:24.


Are there are two different sets of commandments in the words of Christ found below?

Joh 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.


The New Covenant is a higher standard than the Old Covenant, not for our salvation, but for our conduct.

Matthew 5:17-20 is further explained by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:16-29. Here Paul reveals the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant. Paul said the law was “added” 430 years “after” the promise made to Abraham “until” the seed(Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

Later in Matthew chapter 5 Christ contrasts the two covenants below with the words “But I say…”


Mat 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mat 5:23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
Mat 5:25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
Mat 5:26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.


Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Mat 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.


Mat 5:31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
Mat 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.


Mat 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.'
Mat 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
Mat 5:35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.


Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
Mat 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Mat 5:40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
Mat 5:41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
Mat 5:42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.


Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
Mat 5:45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
Mat 5:47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
Mat 5:48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.


Based on Hebrews 7:12, and Hebrews 8:6-13, nobody alive today has broken the now "obsolete" 4th commandment, which was the "sign" of the Sinai Covenant.
See Colossians 2:16-17 if there is any doubt.


The New Covenant: Bob George

.

Click to expand...

This is not relevant to this particular thread although it would be a great topic to discuss in a separate thread. I am already making list.

Contenders Edge said:

If the re-establishment of Israel as an independent nation is not preparing the way for the complete fulfillment of Ezekiel chapter 37, then what else could it be?

Click to expand...

Luke 19:27.
And Isaiah 22:14, Zephaniah 1:14-18, Jeremiah 10:18, plus about 20 other prophesies that tell of the virtual demise of the Jews.
They have continued in rejection of Jesus for nearly 2000 years. What else can God do?
Only a remnant will be saved; Romans 9:27, Isaiah 6:11-13, Zechariah 13:7-9

You know that the rejoining of Judah and Israel has not happened yet. Why is it so hard to see that the lost sheep of Israel are now the Christians?
The unbiblical idea of a general Jewish redemption is just another lie upon the 'rapture' theory.

Contenders Edge said:

How does that not end up being the logical conclusion? There are an increasing number of people within the Church that have justified sinful behavior according to how you are rendering the passages you have cited.

Click to expand...

How is the New Covenant, which is a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6), to blame for the sins of those who abuse it?

Contenders Edge said:

This is not relevant to this particular thread although it would be a great topic to discuss in a separate thread. I am already making list.

Click to expand...

Why is it not relevant to your comment in post #452, and why is it not relevant to the title of this thread, since it make reference to the New Covenant?

.

claninja said:

The old covenant is no longer in effect (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9), thus Deuteronomy 30:1-5, which is part of the old covenant, is no longer in effect.



Scripture clearly state the old covenant was taken away and made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9).



Jesus tells his disciple that he is the good shepherd. So there is no doubt that Ezekiel 34:23 is in regards to Christ. There is no other shepherd we are to look for.

John 10:14-16 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Christ is already the ruler of the kings of the earth.

revelation 1:5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.



Paul is very clear that the gospel was preached to all the world in the 1st century.

Romans 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith

Colossians 1:23 indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

Romans 10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”




The greek word for world in this passage is not kosmos, but oikoumené. Oikoumene refers to the inhabited land and not the whole literal planet of earth.

Matthew 25:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

STRONG'S CONCORDANCE
oikoumené (properly: the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation), the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world, for all outside it was regarded as of no account.



Jesus stated day nor hour. He did not say year. If I am on a business trip and I tell my wife I will be home this week, but not sure which day or time, does that mean I will be home in next year or in 5 years? No

So it is with Jesus, he stated "THIS generation will no pass away until all these things take place", but only the Father new the exact day and hour.



How are you extrapolating this to mean several thousand years later?



God lives outside of time. to him a 1,000 years as a day, and a day as 1,000 years.



Please provide NT scripture that states because of their rejection, fulfillment of has been delayed. We should not build doctrines on speculation, but on concrete evidence in scripture.



I agree that repentance can delay judgment. I agree that disobedience can result in judgment. We have to remember that the nation of Israel was never promised the land of Israel unconditionally. Only Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their offspring, who is Christ, was promised the land unconditionally.

What was the purpose of wandering in the wilderness for 40 years? To test the people of Israel , to humble them, and make a full end to the wicked generation that did not have faith.

Deuteronomy 8:2 And you shall remember the whole way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.

Numbers 14:34-35 According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’ I, the Lord, have spoken. Surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation who are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die

I would argue this 40 years is the type of the 40 year period between the cross and the destruction of the temple and wicked generation who rejected Christ antitype.



I never stated you did. However, if my language inferred that you believed the church is a building, then I apologize.



More speculation. Please provide scripture to support this.



No arguments here.



So then it appears you agree, that wars and rumors of wars occurred in the 1st century.



Like what?



This type of argument is a fallacy in informal logic.

But here is some evidence that they haven't.

Recorded Earthquake statistics for the last 28 years show that earthquakes have not increased in frequency in a statistically significant manner.

Earthquake Statistics

Click to expand...

“Christ is already the ruler of the kings of the earth.”

I do not see Him ruling and reigning over the kings of the earth and they, with perhaps a few exceptions, do not act like His loyal subjects.


“Paul is very clear that the gospel was preached to all the world in the 1st century.
The greek word for world in this passage is not kosmos, but oikoumené. Oikoumene refers to the inhabited land.”


Did the Gospel spread throughout of all of Africa in Paul’s day? Did his generation see it preached throughout all of Central Asia and the far east? Did any of the Apostles or Christ’s disciples of that first generation travel to Australia or the Americas to preach the Gospel? Did all of Europe hear the preaching of the Gospel from that first generation? Those were all inhabited lands in that generation as well.


“oikoumené (properly: the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation), the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world, for all outside it was regarded as of no account.”


By man but not by Christ.


“Jesus stated day nor hour. He did not say year. If I am on a business trip and I tell my wife I will be home this week, but not sure which day or time, does that mean I will be home in next year or in 5 years? No.”


Years are made up of days and so years naturally are tied to days and therefore, if we cannot know the day, then we cannot know the year and Jesus never said what year He was returning.


“So it is with Jesus, he stated "THIS generation will no pass away until all these things take place", but only the Father new the exact day and hour.”


But that generation, as far as history is concerned DID pass away, but if necessary, Jesus is able to keep alive even a handful of representatives of that generation to fulfill prophecy as is suggested as a possibility in the Gospel of John. (Jn. 21:22-23) I think we have already discussed this before. But who are we to say that He could not do that if that was needed to fulfill a specific purpose? After all, there is no telling what players on both sides of the age-long war between God and Satan have been kept in obscurity until the time comes for them to be revealed.


“How are you extrapolating this to mean several thousand years later?”


Do you even understand what is meant by a thief in the night?


“God lives outside of time. to him a 1,000 years as a day, and a day as 1,000 years.”


That is why God does not count “slowness” or “soon” as we do. As far as Peter was concerned, Christ could have just as easily returned in his lifetime as he could a thousand years afterward. Otherwise, why would Peter say that God “is not slack concerning his promises as some count slackness”? (2 Pet. 3:9)


“Please provide NT scripture that states because of their rejection, fulfillment of has been delayed. We should not build doctrines on speculation, but on concrete evidence in scripture.”


The examples from scripture that I have already provided should have been sufficient enough.


More speculation. Please provide scripture to support this.


The point being made is that there are things that can take place and choices made that can affect at what point in time a prophetic fulfillment takes place and how quickly it takes place. I will admit that was a speculation, but not necessarily an unreasonable one. The examples already provided are enough to justify such speculation.


So then it appears you agree, that wars and rumors of wars occurred in the 1st century.


And many more since then.



“Like what?”



Jesus said that the sun would be darkened and that the moon would not give its light prior to His return and that the stars would fall from the sky. (Mt. 24:29, Mk. 13:24) What record is there of such things taking place in the first century? These forthcoming events are no mere eclipses or meteor showers which are normal phenomena. What signs in the heavens took place in the first century so as to strike men’s hearts with fear? (Lk. 21:25)

When have we seen the powers of the heavens shaken? (Mt. 24:29, Mk. 13:25, Lk. 21:26) When have we seen a time so terrible and events so destructive so as to require the return of the Lord to prevent all life from perishing? (Mt. 24:22, Mk. 13:20)

When in the first century did such perplexing distress befall all nations and when in the first century did the waves of the sea roar in such a way so as to strike terror into people all over the world (Lk. 21:25) and when in the first century were men filled with such fear of the things that were to come upon them? (Lk. 21:26)



"But here is some evidence that they haven't.


Recorded Earthquake statistics for the last 28 years show that earthquakes have not increased in frequency in a statistically significant manner."



I looked at the source you provided, compared the different charts and when they are put together, an increase in the frequency of earthquakes is clearly shown.