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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But will they be saved?
Many prophesies plainly tell us they won't and only a small remnant will survive.
The 'All Israel' that Paul refers to is just that; people from each of the 12 tribes, of which Judah, the Jews represent 2.

Paul says they will be (Rom. 11:26) but only a remnant of them will be left when that happens; (Rom. 9:27) the size of that remnant given in Zechariah 13:9.


Israelis are a nation, a people; but NOT by descent from Judah, as the historical record proves. They are just like every other nation; made up of peoples from many ancestries. They call themselves Jews, but they are not.


They may not all be Jews spiritually, but they are still descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And no one ever claimed that the Israelis have all descended from just one tribe.


This idea is false and is promoted to support the Satanic lie of the 'rapture to heaven' of the Church theory.
It is every faithful Christian who receives the New Covenant, never a unrepentant and Jesus rejection people.


But if they embrace the New Covenant as the scripture foretells, then they will no longer be unrepentant, nor will they persist in rejecting Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The remnant according to the election of grace is in reference to Jews coming to Christ then and now. The remnant spoken in the future tense is who will be left of the nation of Israel when the nation embraces the New Covenant and without a doubt has its foundation in Zechariah 13:9 and other similar Old Testament Passages.

Paul's definition of remnant does not change between present and future tense.

Paul does not quote Zechariah 13, where “remnant” does not appear. He quotes Isaiah 10:22, where it does.

Paul's definition of the remnant, and the dispensational definition of remnant, do not agree.

“Election of grace” is an unmistakable and exclusive reference to faithful obedient believers in Christ, past, present, and future.

It never refers to unfaithful disobedient Israel.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Paul's definition of remnant does not change between present and future tense.

Paul does not quote Zechariah 13, where “remnant” does not appear. He quotes Isaiah 10:22, where it does.

Paul's definition of the remnant, and the dispensational definition of remnant, do not agree.

“Election of grace” is an unmistakable and exclusive reference to faithful obedient believers in Christ, past, present, and future.

It never refers to unfaithful disobedient Israel.


Romans 11:5: Present tense as it pertains to Jews presently coming to Christ. Romans 9:27 and 11:26: Future tense as it pertains to the nation as a whole. While Isaiah 10:22 is the cited passage upon which Romans 9:27 rests, Zechariah 13 is also agreement in that a remnant of the nation will be saved. It is just that Zechariah tells us the size of that remnant.

When the nation of Israel finally calls upon the Messiah, no longer will they be unfaithful and disobedient.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Romans 11:5: Present tense as it pertains to Jews presently coming to Christ. Romans 9:27 and 11:26: Future tense as it pertains to the nation as a whole. While Isaiah 10:22 is the cited passage upon which Romans 9:27 rests, Zechariah 13 is also agreement in that a remnant of the nation will be saved. It is just that Zechariah tells us the size of that remnant.

When the nation of Israel finally calls upon the Messiah, no longer will they be unfaithful and disobedient.

Two Israels.

Romans 9
6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. Of Israel:
Not all Israel
The children of the flesh
Not the children of God
Not the children of the promise
Not counted for the seed

2. All Israel:
Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Only one of these Israels shall be saved.

Romans 11
26
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Only the faithful obedient remnant "all Israel" shall be saved. (Romans 9:27)

The faithful obedient remnant within the unfaithful disobedient nation.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's a straw man argument. If God's promises under the old covenant were UNCONDITIONAL then your argument would work. If God could go back on unconditional promises, how could we ever trust Him? I agree with that logic. However, the old covenant does not consist of Unconditional promises. The old covenant promises are CONDITIONAL upon Israel's obedience (detueronomy 28:1-68). If Israel obeyed, then God was faithful to fulfill his part of the agreement through blessing them. If Israel disobeyed, God was faithful to His part of the agreement by cursing Israel.


It also goes on to say that if Israel repented, the curses would be lifted and the blessings would be restored. The Apostle Paul said that "if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?" (Rom. 11:12) Clearly he believed that principle to still be in effect. He no doubt knew that the wrath of God was upon that generation of Jews who rejected the Gospel and chose enmity with Christ, but at the same time, he also believed that if they did not continue on their rejection of the Gospel, all the blessings pertaining to them could be restored.

If he did not believe that, Romans chapter 11 as we know it today would not exist.


But this agreement ended (Hebrews 8:13 and Hebrews 10:9). This agreement was only meant until the time of Christ (galatians 3:24). It was superseded by the new covenant. So which new testament scripture explicitly and clearly tells us that land restoration is a part of the new covenant agreement?


Show which New Testament scripture explicitly declares that land restoration is no longer in effect. We already know what has explicitly been canceled out because the scripture declares what has been canceled out.


That's a vague answer. It's a simple question, is the natural olive tree that the natural branches were broken off of, Israel or the Church?


What does the olive tree represent? Tell me what the olive tree represents and that will determine what the branches represent. One thing for sure is that if the natural branches spared because of their unbelief, the grafted branches will not be spared either if they should fall into sin and unbelief, but those branches, even the natural branches, can be grafted back in if they do not remain in unbelief.


Again, the gentiles are never mentioned in hosea 1. Hosea 1 consists of the northern kingdom becoming no longer God's people, but one day they would again be His people and would be reunited with the southern kingdom under on leader. Ezekiel 37 has the northern kingdom being reunited with the southern kingdom under one leader.

Paul interprets hosea 1, which is about the northern kingdom being reunited with the southern kingdom under one leader, as being fulfilled with the gentiles being included with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (romans 9:23-26). As Hosea 1 is about the same thing as ezekiel 37, why would we not apply this same principle that Paul does?


Paul does not interpret passage with Hosea that he cites as pertaining to the reunification of Israel. He does not even say anything about a divided kingdom. His premise pertains to the unification of Jew and Gentile in Christ. That is what he declared to be a fulfillment of Hosea.


From a genealogical and anthropological stand point, that makes no sense. The assyrians would relocate their captives. This is evidenced in 2 kings. They would do this so that intermarrying would occur. the scattered, divorced, and exiled descendants of ephraim would have mixed with the peoples that assryia would have placed them with. And if they moved from there, their descendants would have mixed with the nations they moved to.

Chances are, if you do a DNA test, you are not 100% from one nation. You probably have a mixture of nations in your DNA. I also have Jewish DNA, so somewhere down the line my Jewish ancestors mixed with surrounding nations.


Whatever degree of mixing took place would have been limited for several reasons. Despite being dispersed throughout the nations, the ethnicity of the Israelites has still been preserved.


No disagreements here. But do you agree that Greece became a nation again after a very long period of time?


The difference between them and Israel is that Israel was not spread abroad before the exile. The Greeks, on the other hand, were present throughout various lands before their Diaspora.


Paul states the exact opposite, it is only the children of promise that are counted as offspring, so you may want to rephrase.

Romans 9:8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.


Verses seven and eight, when put together give clarification as by what the children of promise are defined:

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham are they children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh..."

Isaac was the promised lineage from whom all Jews are descended. That is why Paul called the Jews the children of the promise but yet called them the children of the flesh to distinguish them from the children of God.

Paul wanted to make clear that being a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in and of itself, did not make one a child of God, but that being a child of God required a spiritual rebirth in Christ.


So then you would agree, that those of the modern nation of Israel, that are in no way related to the pre desolation hebrews, culturally, economically, or religously, who reject Christ, are not his people?


That depends on what you mean by pre-desolation Hebrews. They have faced two desolations. One by the Assyrians which was later completed by the Babylonians. The second, by the Romans.


Nor is jesus Christ a literally lamb or brick and mortar temple building, and yet they were pictures.


But the illustrations used are consistent with what they were intended to represent.


Can anyone of modern day Israel prove, through genealogical records as was required by the OT, as to which tribe they belong to? Can you name one Jew who can prove their tribal ancestry that traces their genealogical record all the way back to pre desolation Judiasm?


Apparently God did not require that to re-establish them as a nation, but if they are required for further fulfillment, they will be found. I do not know how that will be made possible, I just know that God will do what is necessary to fulfill what has been foretold.


why would I answer a straw man argument that doesn't even pertain to the point I made?


It did pertain to the point you made, but if you had an answer to it, you would have given it.


Peter is quoting from Exodus, which applies to the Israel. Thus the body of Christ and true Israel are one. Christ is Israel. Anyone who is in Christ is an offspring of Abraham.


What Peter is quoting is a promise that the nation of Israel and the Church share in common but they still remain distinct entities. Israel is a divinely established nation with territory and borders. The Church is a divinely established institution that transcends nations and geographical boundaries.


Good, we agree that marriage is a picture of christ and the church


That it is used as an illustration of the relationship between Christ and the Church.


Yes, the explanations are found only in Christ. for all the promises of God are yes in Him. for the law, psalms, and prophets all testified to him.

scripture literally tells us that through moses God spoke clearly and without ridde, but to the prophets that were raised up in Israel, God spoke in visions, dreams, and riddles (numbers 12:6-8). So, as scripture instructs, would should likewise interpret.


But those visions and riddles have been explained and where they have been explained, there is no dispute, but we cannot assign interpretation where one is not given.


It's a vision
Ezekiel 40:1-2 In the twenty-fifth year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after the city was struck down, on that very day, the hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me to the city.a In visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel, and set me down on a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south

Thus it is riddle/parable/shadow/picture pointing to the reality in Christ. There are no NT scriptures that mention future worship under the new covenant in a temple building with animal sacrifices.

If one can't understand the earthly pictures, how will they ever understand the heavenly?


Visions that are symbolic are explained, but when no interpretation is given, that is a strong indicator that the vision is a literal depiction. It would take an in depth study to explain the eight chapters of Ezekiel that are devoted to this subject.


Good, so we agree that whether we are at his footstool (earth) or at his throne (heaven) we are never separated from God. and thus you have the body of Christ, that dwells at his footstool (earth) and his throne (heaven). That sounds an awful lot like the ezekiel temple (ezekiel 43:7) which pointed to the true temple of God, us.


Ezekiel's Temple is about the reign of Christ on earth. We are not a building with the detailed and elaborate descriptions given to the Temple that Ezekiel saw in his vision. We, however, are a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit until the day we meet Christ face to face.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Two Israels.

Romans 9
6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

1. Of Israel:
Not all Israel
The children of the flesh
Not the children of God
Not the children of the promise
Not counted for the seed

2. All Israel:
Not of Israel
Not the children of the flesh
The children of God
The children of the promise
Counted for the seed

Only one of these Israels shall be saved.

Romans 11
26
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Only the faithful obedient remnant "all Israel" shall be saved. (Romans 9:27)

The faithful obedient remnant within the unfaithful disobedient nation.


The "spiritual" Israel, being the Church which transcends peoples, tribes, kindreds, tongues, nations, and geographical boundaries is already saved. The Israel which is defined by a bloodline and geographical boundaries will be saved. (Rom. 9:27, 11:26)

When they call upon their Messiah, will they not then become a part of the "spiritual Israel"?
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The "spiritual" Israel, being the Church which transcends peoples, tribes, kindreds, tongues, nations, and geographical boundaries is already saved.

The Church is saved from sin today, and as a result will be saved from eternal punishment in the end.

The Israel which is defined by a bloodline and geographical boundaries will be saved. (Rom. 9:27, 11:26)

The remnant of Romans 9:27 is identified by Paul as those of the election of grace in Romans 11:5, an exclusive reference to faithful obedient believers in Christ, aka His Church.

Paul does not preach the election of race. He preaches the election of grace.

It has nothing to do with bloodline and geographical boundaries.

As you've well observed, it "transcends peoples, tribes, kindreds, tongues, nations, and geographical boundaries".
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: claninja
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Church is saved from sin today, and as a result will be saved from eternal punishment in the end.



The remnant of Romans 9:27 is identified by Paul as those of the election of grace in Romans 11:5, an exclusive reference to faithful obedient believers in Christ, aka His Church.

Paul does not preach the election of race. He preaches the election of grace.

It has nothing to do with bloodline and geographical boundaries.

As you've well observed, it "transcends peoples, tribes, kindreds, tongues, nations, and geographical boundaries".


Romans 11:5 is in reference to persons out of a nation who are saved and who continue to come to Christ to this day. That is what is referred to as the remnant according to the election of grace and the context thereof presents this in the present tense, but Romans 9:27 is speaking about more than just a small number of individuals out of an entire nation who come to Christ.

It is speaking of the salvation of the nation of Israel as a whole which is contextually presented in the future tense yet making clear that when that is fulfilled, only a remnant of the nation will be left and they who are left will be they who have called upon Jesus for deliverance but that remnant will still be large enough to continue as a viable nation and people and to recover from the purging process destined to take place which also leads to their repentance.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,561
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,792.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
It is speaking of the salvation of the nation of Israel as a whole which is contextually presented in the future tense yet making clear that when that is fulfilled, only a remnant of the nation will be left and they who are left will be they who have called upon Jesus for deliverance but that remnant will still be large enough to continue as a viable nation and people and to recover from the purging process destined to take place which also leads to their repentance.
This whole concept is wrong, for many reasons:
1/ There is only one people of God. John 17:20-23, Ephesians 4:4-6
2/ the Jews as a people group have lost their status. Mathew 21:43
3/ Over 20 prophesies tell of a virtual wipe out of the Jewish nation. Isaiah 22:14, Zephaniah 1:14-18
4/ The actual House of Israel still remain scattered among the nations, yet to rejoin with the remnant of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. After the Lord's Day of wrath clears the holy Land for them, a huge multitude from every tribe, race, nation and language, all the Lord's faithful Christians. Isaiah 62:1-5

The teaching of a general Jewish repentance is an immutable tenet of the 'rapture to heaven of the Church' theory. Them on earth, us in heaven.
This belief is not what the Bible prophets tell us and will never happen.
We must all, Jew and everyone else, endure until the end, Matthew 24:13, and Jesus will gather those who stood firm in their faith at His Return. Matthew 24:30-31
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This whole concept is wrong, for many reasons:
1/ There is only one people of God. John 17:20-23, Ephesians 4:4-6
2/ the Jews as a people group have lost their status. Mathew 21:43
3/ Over 20 prophesies tell of a virtual wipe out of the Jewish nation. Isaiah 22:14, Zephaniah 1:14-18
4/ The actual House of Israel still remain scattered among the nations, yet to rejoin with the remnant of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. After the Lord's Day of wrath clears the holy Land for them, a huge multitude from every tribe, race, nation and language, all the Lord's faithful Christians. Isaiah 62:1-5

The teaching of a general Jewish repentance is an immutable tenet of the 'rapture to heaven of the Church' theory. Them on earth, us in heaven.
This belief is not what the Bible prophets tell us and will never happen.
We must all, Jew and everyone else, endure until the end, Matthew 24:13, and Jesus will gather those who stood firm in their faith at His Return. Matthew 24:30-31


The scripture says that God has not cast off the nation of Israel (Rom. 11:1) and that the Jews can regain their status again if they do not remain in unbelief (Rom. 11:23)

Zechariah says that a third of the nation will be spared after the judgment has passed. (Zech. 3:9) A third is enough to still remain a viable nation and people and to recover from the devastation that is destined to come. The third that is left will be they who have called upon the Messiah for deliverance.

The scattered tribes are already being regathered as the number of Jews in Israel are increasing as more continue to move in. Whoever does not return in this present age will be returned to their homeland when Jesus returns to reign.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Their minds were opened when Christ explained what the OT scriptures said concerning Him. He explained to them the meaning of the visions and the riddles which I have trusted the Word of God to do.

I agree. The prophets received vision, dreams, and riddles from God, which needed to be interpreted. But I disagree with your requirement that OT passages that are not mentioned in the NT require literal interpretation.

Here is some more scriptures that back up my claim: God never changes (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8) and is faithful in keeping His promises (Heb. 10:23)

I have searched the scriptures from beginning to end regarding any doctrine or subject that they address and what I find is a consistency regarding each from beginning to end which testifies to the consistent nature of God in every matter. If God never changes, then what He has said pertaining to the people of Israel has not changed.

I agree God's character never changes. He is always perfect in all of His ways. The annulment of the old covenant does not change that. UNCONDITIONAL promises were made to Abraham and his offspring, who was Jesus. CONDITIONAL agreements were made to Israel leading up to the time of Jesus. The CONDITIONAL agreements were done away with because the nation of Israel could not uphold their end. The new covenant superseded this CONDITIONAL agreement with better promises and fulfilled the UNCONDITIONAL promises made to Abraham.

The Apostle Paul declared that "if their fall be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness...For if by the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:13, 15)

natural Israel's trespass/stumbling was the rejection of the messiah, the stumbling block, which led to His crucifixion. By His crucifixion, salvation went to the nations/gentiles.

Thus, by the gospel going to the nations, natural Israel would be made jealous so that some would return to the Lord


Romans 10:19 I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation without understanding

Romans 11:11 , because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous

And by their returning the Lord, life from the dead, just as it is for all those who are saved by Christ.

Romans 11:15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

Ephesians 2:4-5 But because of His great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ, even when we were dead in our trespasses.

In other words, if God used the casting away of Israel to draw the world to Himself, how much more so when He receives them back again? But if we really want to know how the world benefits from the reconciling of Israel to God more so than not, we need to understand what kind of a nation God wanted the Israelites to be and still wants them to be and the only way to find that out is to go back to the Old Testament because it has much to say about the kind of nation and people that God has desired them to be. Scriptures that give insight into this are Deut. 28:1-14, 30:5-9, Ezek. chapter 37, and Zech. chapter 8 to start out with though more could be added

Jesus is the revelation as to what Israel was to be. Jesus is the true Israel. The true representative.

If these and other passages like them are not what Romans chapter 11 rest on, what else could that chapter rest on? Yet the fulness of Israel requires that they be regathered from all the nations to which they were driven.

Where does the term "fullness of the nations/gentiles" come from? There is only 1 passage in the OT:

Romans 11:25 do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the fullness of the nations has come in.

Genesis 48:19 But his father refused. “I know, my son, I know!” he said. “He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great; nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a fullness of nations.”

Ephraim's descendants were prophesied to become a fullness of nations. The northern kingdom, in the prophets, was called by the terms Ephraim, Israel, and Joseph. So we see here, that the northern kingdom was prophesied to become a fullness of nations.

The northern kingdom would become a fullness of nations through their divorce, exile, and scattering among the nations by the Assryian empire. Thus the descendants of the northern kingdom would be gentiles by no longer being God's people and mixing with the nations for a period of 700 years (from the Assyrian exile until the 1st advent and beyond).

Paul understands this mystery, as we see that Paul quotes hosea 1 and 2, which was about the descendants of the northern kingdom, as being fulfilled with GENTILES/NATIONS being included with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (romans 9:23-26).


The greek word for until in this passage is "achri". It doesn't always refer to a cessation point but can also be a reference point. It can mean "during" or "while". See strong's definition.

Romans 11:25-26 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

So a part of 1st century, tribally intact, natural Israel was hardened in order for the rejection of Christ to occur, which led to the crucifixion. So while a part of Israel was hardened which lead to the crucifixion, salvation went to the nations.

All of Israel being saved = Jews (remnant who accept Christ) + nations/gentiles (of whom some descended from the northern kingdom). Which correlates with paul's use of hosea 1 and 2 as being fulfilled with gentiles being included with the remnant Jews in the vessels of mercy.



But if land restoration is out of the equation for Israel, then what else could be taken out of the equation for the rest of us? If God is not faithful in fulfilling even the least of all promises made, how can He still be called "faithful" and "unchanging?"

Again, land restoration is not mentioned once in the NT.

As for further indication of land restoration, Revelation chapters 7:4-8, 11, 12, 14:1-5 and 19 are clear indicators because the people of Israel have more central role in the book of Revelation than throughout the rest of the New Testament. I did not want to go into those chapters because I know that they open up a host of other topics that are not relevant to this thread.

Revelation is in regards to the events of 70ad. For they were "soon" and about to take place. Was Israel in the land in 70ad? Yes. But you are correct, a further thread is needed for all of the discussion on this topic.

It appears you have no idea what "forever" means. When God has decreed anything to be everlasting, no matter what covenant it was declared, it will be forever, which means that which is decreed to be forever was carried over into the New Covenant. If not, then God would be a liar.

The definition of forever is different than olam. Forever means without end, unless used in a sarcastic way. olam doesn't always carry that same meaning. It's better understand as an unknown amount of time or beyond the horizon. It can mean forever, but not always. Thus God exists olam and the covenant of circumcision is olam or the priesthood of Aaron is olam. We know God exists forever, the but the covenant of circumcision is no longer and the priesthood of aaron is no longer.

It was these things that were fulfilled and replaced by Christ whose sacrifice did for us what the continual animal sacrifices could not, who serves as our High Priest instead of corruptible men and makes priests of us who call on His name for forgiveness of sins and receive Him as our Lord, who has taken away that separating veil between us and God in order that we can stand before Him.

As was the sabbath days, feasts, new moon festivals, food and drink laws, circumcision...

That was what was fulfilled by Christ at the cross and validated by His resurrection. But there are still things to come written in both the Old and the New Testament that did not come to pass before Christ, nor in the days the Church was founded and established, nor have yet come to pass in our day.

But to do a study on all that has come to pass and is yet to come would go beyond the topic of this thread, and due to space limitations, would be far too extensive for this forum.

Right, and what has or has not been fulfilled is highly debatable.


These verses make no mention of old covenant blessings remaining. so I don't know what you're talking about.

David knew that he would have a descendant, which is Christ, to be on his throne forever, but in order for a man to remain on the throne consecutively between his generation and Christ, the people of Israel had to continue walking closely and faithfully with their Maker, but because they did not, they presently have no king until Christ returns to reign upon the earth.

This doesn't answer my question. What did David SPECIFICALLY speak about knowing God would place a descendant on his throne?

Acts 2:30-31 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay.

Granted that when they were speaking to Gentile audiences, it would have made sense for them to cite the Septuagint, but when speaking to a Hebrew audience, it would not have made sense for them to cite from a Greek text but would have cited from a Hebrew text because the Jews did not read the scriptures in Greek but only Hebrew.

That doesn't change the fact the NT testament quotes from Septuagint, thus showing it was an accurate and inspired translation.

I do not know where you are finding "Spermati." I have only found "Sperma" which can be applied in either the singular or plural, but in the case of Galatians 3:16, it is applied in the singular.

Spermati is the singular form

Spermati is used in regards to Christ.
Galatians 3:16 Greek Text Analysis


Sperma is used in exodus 32:13a in regards to descendants becoming like stars of heaven, but Spermati (singular) is used in exodus 32:13b in regards to the land.
http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Exodus_32.pdf


Christ never said that John was Elijah in the literal sense. Even John himself denied this. Jesus made it clear that John the Baptist was only a "figurative" Elijah type.

Jesus literally states John IS the Elijah who was to come. Thus, John is who was prophesied about in Malachi 4:5. As we know the prophets were given visions, dreams, and riddles, a literal Elijah is not the true interpretation.

Matthew 11:14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.

No they are not the same, but the full restoration of Israel is tied to them finally accepting the Gospel they once rejected.

As the descendants of the northern became a fullness of nations, yes the saving of Israel is associated with the nations accepting the gospel.

But he never said that they would be sown among the nations.

He stated they would be sown among man and beast in regards to the new covenant.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,561
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,792.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Zechariah says that a third of the nation will be spared after the judgment has passed. (Zech. 3:9) A third is enough to still remain a viable nation and people and to recover from the devastation that is destined to come. The third that is left will be they who have called upon the Messiah for deliverance.
What Zechariah 13:9 actually says is; Then I shall pass this third thru the fire and refine them..… Paralleled by Isaiah 4:3 and Isaiah 6:13, Ezekiel 21:1-7, where it shows that far less than 1/3 will survive. Only a remnant of the Jews, those who have accepted Jesus now; will join with the Christian House of Israel and go to live in all of the holy Land. Jeremiah 50:4-5, Romans 9:24-27
So your belief of a Jewish redemption is wrong. The only people of God, are those who believe in God, accept the Atoning sacrifice of Jesus and keep the Commandments.
Remember; God has NO favorites. Romans 2:11
The scattered tribes are already being regathered as the number of Jews in Israel are increasing as more continue to move in. Whoever does not return in this present age will be returned to their homeland when Jesus returns to reign.
Thinking that the Jewish nation of Israel is the only Israel, displays a failure to understand what being an Israelite means. We see them in each of the 7 Churchs of Revelation 2 & 3. They are the Overcomers, the Victorious ones for God, the spiritual descendants of Jacob.
The nations of all the holy Land area will all be gone, Jeremiah 12:14, Ezekiel 30:1-5, Zephaniah 1:14-18, + and it will be every faithful Christian, who will occupy their heritage: Romans 8:16-18, Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:26-29
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The scripture says that God has not cast off the nation of Israel (Rom. 11:1)

Not so.

This is a classic spiritual “believing baby - unbelieving bathwater” scenario. The previous chapter has concluded with:

Romans 10
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Paul is describing the "unbelieving bathwater" ethnic majority of the nation of Israel, having already recognized in Romans 9:27 that only a "believing baby" remnant will be saved, and that the "unbelieving bathwater" remainder will be cast away i.e. thrown out.

This is the reason for his anguish at the beginning of Romans 9.

In Romans 11:1, he is asking rhetorically if God is going to throw out the believing baby with the unbelieving bathwater. “His people”, additionally qualified as “His people whom He foreknew”, specifically identifies those of whom Paul is speaking as being the believing baby (1 Peter 1:2, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God"). Paul then declares that ethnically he is the unbelieving bathwater, but spiritually he is the believing baby. As the latter, he will not be lost and cast away along with the former.

Paul leaves no doubt that "His people which He foreknew" refers to the faithful obedient believing "remnant according to the election of grace", in Romans 11:4,5.

So Paul's question in effect is:
“Has God cast away the believing remnant of ethnic Israelites, His people whom He foreknew; because the majority of ethnic Israelites are unbelievers who are cast away”?

His answer is:
“No; I'm an ethnic Israelite, of whom the majority are unbelievers; but I myself am a believer, which makes me one of His people whom He foreknew, one of the "remnant according to the election of grace"; and I'm thus one of those who is not cast away”.

God has only one people of Israel who are “His people whom He foreknew”, and they are His "believing baby" faithful obedient remnant according to the election of grace, who are not cast away with the "unbelieving bathwater".

They and faithful obedient believing Gentiles are grafted together to comprise all Israel (Romans 11:26) who are saved from sin, and in the end will be saved from eternal punishment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Romans 11:5: Present tense as it pertains to Jews presently coming to Christ. Romans 9:27 and 11:26: Future tense as it pertains to the nation as a whole. While Isaiah 10:22 is the cited passage upon which Romans 9:27 rests, Zechariah 13 is also agreement in that a remnant of the nation will be saved. It is just that Zechariah tells us the size of that remnant.

When the nation of Israel finally calls upon the Messiah, no longer will they be unfaithful and disobedient.

Actually, Romans 11:5's present day is back then in Paul's day.

He was referring to the Believing Remnant of Israel of his day - notice:

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

He is saying that the nation Israel's election (back then) obtained (had sought after or believed) what the Lord had wanted for their nation, but the rest of their nation did not...
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,136.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He currently reigns from Heaven over all things, but not from the earth.
If thousand year reign was in effect, there would be no wars, every dispute would be quickly settled, death and disease would not be nearly as prevalent as they are now, every wrong would be swiftly righted, spiritual wickedness would be non-existent, all people would know the Lord, there would be no tyranny or oppression, the evils and wickedness existent today would be no more, and the this increasingly darkening dying world would be a far better place than it is today.

Jesus already rules over the heavens and earth from the throne (heaven is his throne). What NT scripture states his throne will be on earth?

I do not know what Strong's you are getting this exact definition from. It is not found in mine.

Strong's Greek: 3625. οἰκουμένη (oikoumené) -- the inhabited earth

Which is why considering the possibility of a few representatives, like John, being kept alive for that purpose (Jn. 21:22-23) makes the best sense and is the most logical because not all things have come to pass.

So you believe 1st century John is still alive today?

I did not say that. We are to look only for those things that Christ says that we are to look for as they pertain to His return, but it would be a blasphemy to suggest that such signs are tied to astrology since the Bible forbids astrology.

So we shouldn't connect literal signs in the heavens then with earthly events, right? because that is what astrology is.

The wicked tenants were indeed destroyed by the Roman legions but the vineyard owner did not establish His reign in the vineyard at that time. If He had, the course of history would be far different than it has been. His return is when He physically rules as King upon the earth.

So you do appear to believe the vineyard owner came to destroy the wicked tenants via the roman armies destroying Jerusalem in 70ad.

Would you agree that this is when the kingdom was taken from the wicked tenants and given to the nation already producing its fruit
?

Matthew 21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.

So, you admit that from a pure numbers and statistical analysis, which is the most honest and accurate approach, there was an increase in earthquakes between 1990 and 2018, yet you refuse to accept that approach because the data spans only twenty-eight years. How many more years would have to be added?

This is what your incorrect premise is based on. You are taking the 1st data set (1990) and the last data set (2018) and ignoring everything in the middle. Yes, by simply counting the number of earthquakes, 2018 has a sum total more than 1990. However, there are several factors to take into account

1.) if we include all the years between 1990 and 2018, then no, earthquakes have not increased as a grand total. There are increases and decreases, which do not demonstrate an overall increase in earthquakes from 1990 to 2018.

2.) equipment and record keeping of earthquakes has improved over the last 2 decades, thus it is not an increase in frequency, but an improvement in detecting and recording earthquakes.


3.) only data form 1990 until 2018 is available, thus the whole picture is not available, especially if the claim is that earthquake frequencies have been increasing since Jesus' time.


The data that I was referring to was seismic activity that goes unnoticed which is credited to more advanced earthquake detecting technology and that, of course, was not included in the data. The data pertains to only earthquakes that are felt and that is not what rector scales are credited for revealing. What they do is measure the magnitude of earthquakes felt.

Noticeable earthquakes of various magnitudes are reported, but the magnitudes are what the scales measure.

The data being discussed is not undetectable earthquakes. It pertains to magnitudes 5 and greater, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

That is because they are imposing a secular presupposition on their own data instead of comparing their data with Bible prophecy. If they were to objectively compare their data with scripture to determine whether seismic activity was on the rise, their conclusions might be different.

This argument doesn't even make sense considering the fact that Jesus never even states that earthquakes would increase.

If that does not imply an increase in earthquakes, then what was the point of declaring a thing to come that was already known and taking place from time to time? Earthquakes in and of themselves are not sign of the return of our Lord. Earthquakes had been taking place even before that discourse was given. The only logical conclusion is that an escalation of such is implied.

People often mistake wars and natural phenomon (earthquakes, tsunamis, famines etc...) with the end of the world. But Jesus tells us it is not so.

mark 13:7-8 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I disagree with your requirement that OT passages that are not mentioned in the NT require literal interpretation.


The context in any given passage of scripture is what determines interpretation; whether it is to be taken literally, figuratively, or symbolically. That rule never changes under any given circumstance.


CONDITIONAL agreements were made to Israel leading up to the time of Jesus. The CONDITIONAL agreements were done away with because the nation of Israel could not uphold their end. The new covenant superseded this CONDITIONAL agreement with better promises...


The only conditional promises that were undeniably made was that the descendants of David would inherit his throne consecutively as long as the house of David remained faithful to God. (1 Ki. 4:2, 9:5, 2 Chr. 7:17-18) and that God's presence would dwell in the Temple that Solomon built provided that the people did not turn away from Him. (1 Ki. 6:12-13, 9:3)

Under the Old Covenant, the people of Israel experienced the blessings promised them when they were faithful and obedient to God. All the curses of which they were warned came upon them when they turned away from following the Lord which included most of them being carried into exile, but upon repentance, they were restored to their homeland and blessings were restored to them.

When they rejected the New Covenant that God established in Christ, punishment came upon them again. But if the blessings pertaining to them were restored to them upon repentance under the Old Covenant, the same can be restored to them upon their embrace of the New Covenant and such can be expected of a God who maintains a nature of consistency.

But if "land restoration" was not what Paul had in mind in being tied to their reconciliation with God, then we should expect Romans chapter 11 to make that clear in such a way that there could be no dispute.


And by their returning the Lord, life from the dead, just as it is for all those who are saved by Christ.


Which will be used to draw the world unto Christ even more so than their rejection of Him. First, their spiritual rebirth. And second, as it pertains to them, their exaltation as a nation and a restoration of all they once possessed.

Just as Israel is destined for a spiritual and physical restoration, so the redemption of our souls will also manifest in the redemption our bodies from death.


Jesus is the revelation as to what Israel was to be. Jesus is the true Israel. The true representative.


It is under Christ that Israel will finally become the nation they were supposed to be.


Where does the term "fullness of the nations/gentiles" come from? There is only 1 passage in the OT:

Genesis 48:19 But his father refused. “I know, my son, I know!” he said. “He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great; nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a fullness of nations.”


In order for there to be a prophetic fulfillment, nations would have to descend from Ephraim. Mixing with pre-existing peoples and nations is not a fulfillment of prophecy. What nations were actually founded by the descendants of Ephraim and can trace their ancestry back to Israel?


Paul understands this mystery, as we see that Paul quotes hosea 1 and 2, which was about the descendants of the northern kingdom, as being fulfilled with GENTILES/NATIONS being included with the Jews in the vessels of mercy (romans 9:23-26).


In citing the prophet Hosea, Paul made mention of Gentiles but said nothing about the Northern tribes. His rendering of Hosea in this case is different from yours.


So a part of 1st century, tribally intact, natural Israel was hardened in order for the rejection of Christ to occur, which led to the crucifixion.


Jesus expressed grief over Israel's rejection of Him. This does not sound like a God who has hardened the heart of a people. By all accounts, the people chose to harden their hearts.


All of Israel being saved = Jews (remnant who accept Christ) + nations/gentiles (of whom some descended from the northern kingdom...


The Gentiles are not part of the nation of Israel, though some will be saved alongside them because other nations do enter into the Millennial reign alongside Israel.


The definition of forever is different than olam...olam doesn't always carry that same meaning...It can mean forever, but not always. Thus God exists olam and the covenant of circumcision is olam or the priesthood of Aaron is olam. We know God exists forever, the but the covenant of circumcision is no longer and the priesthood of aaron is no longer.


First of all, there never was a covenant called "covenant of circumcision" but outward circumcision was established as outward binding act and sign by the participants of the covenants involving circumcision to show that they were committed to faithful obedience to God, and to serve Him alone and no other gods.

There are two covenants that circumcision is associated with. The covenant God made with Abraham and the covenant made by God with the nation of Israel. Circumcision, in both cases, were an outward declaration of faith placed in God and a commitment of faithful obedience to Him and to the laws, statutes, and ordinances that He ordained.

In much the same way, Baptism by water is a public declaration of a professed faith in Christ and an action stating that the one being baptized is committing him or herself to following Jesus.

Secondly, Jesus perpetuates Aaron's priesthood because He is our High priest. How He qualifies genealogically? Examine Mary's family ties. (Lk. 1:5, 36) Her cousin Elizabeth, a descendant of the line of Aaron, was married to Zacharias, a priest. (Lk. 1:5) He had to be a Levite in order to be a priest.

This is how the priesthood of Aaron lives on and is perpetuated forever as God said it would be and when Christ does return to earth, He will be ruling as a King and serving as a Priest.

Revelation is in regards to the events of 70ad. For they were "soon" and about to take place. Was Israel in the land in 70ad? Yes.

144,000 from Israel consisting of 12,000 from each tribe were not sent out to evangelize the world in 70 A.D., nor did two witnesses did not appear in Jerusalem to prophesy and do the things that they will do when they do appear.

But because Israel plays such a central role in the book of Revelation, in order for all the above mentioned to take place a regathering of the Jews to their homeland is clearly required. All these things are yet to come.


These verses make no mention of old covenant blessings remaining. so I don't know what you're talking about.


I meant to refer to Romans 11:12 and 15 (I had typed verse 13 by mistake) but what has the fulness of the Jews always consisted of? What has God meant it to consist of in such a way so as to draw the rest of the nations to Him?


This doesn't answer my question. What did David SPECIFICALLY speak about knowing God would place a descendant on his throne?


I already answered it: "David knew that he would have a descendant, which is Christ..."


That doesn't change the fact the NT testament quotes from Septuagint, thus showing it was an accurate and inspired translation.


But how often does the NT cite the Septuagint? There is no way to determine that from the scripture itself.


Sperma is used in exodus 32:13a in regards to descendants becoming like stars of heaven, but Spermati (singular) is used in exodus 32:13b in regards to the land.


According to the Strong's Concordance, Paul uses "Sperma" in Galatians 3:16 yet applies it in the singular which it can be. "Spermati" does not appear anywhere in the Strong's, but if "Spermati was indeed used in Exodus 32:13 in the Septuagint, then we have a problem because the Hebrew word for seed in that same passage is used in the plural sense. They cannot both be right.


Jesus literally states John IS the Elijah who was to come. Thus, John is who was prophesied about in Malachi 4:5...a literal Elijah is not the true interpretation.


Not at the first coming, but what about the second coming?


As the descendants of the northern became a fullness of nations, yes the saving of Israel is associated with the nations accepting the gospel.


What nations trace their beginnings back to Ephraim?


He stated they would be sown among man and beast in regards to the new covenant.


The passage states that the houses of Israel and Judah would be sown "with man and beast", and that is happening in the land of Israel today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, Romans 11:5's present day is back then in Paul's day.

He was referring to the Believing Remnant of Israel of his day - notice:

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

He is saying that the nation Israel's election (back then) obtained (had sought after or believed) what the Lord had wanted for their nation, but the rest of their nation did not...


There are still Jews coming to Christ today which makes Romans 11:5 apply today and to this day, the majority of the nation of Israel still remains in unbelief but it will not always be so. (Rom. 11:26)
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not so.

This is a classic spiritual “believing baby - unbelieving bathwater” scenario. The previous chapter has concluded with:

Romans 10
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Paul is describing the "unbelieving bathwater" ethnic majority of the nation of Israel, having already recognized in Romans 9:27 that only a "believing baby" remnant will be saved, and that the "unbelieving bathwater" remainder will be cast away i.e. thrown out.

This is the reason for his anguish at the beginning of Romans 9.

In Romans 11:1, he is asking rhetorically if God is going to throw out the believing baby with the unbelieving bathwater. “His people”, additionally qualified as “His people whom He foreknew”, specifically identifies those of whom Paul is speaking as being the believing baby (1 Peter 1:2, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God"). Paul then declares that ethnically he is the unbelieving bathwater, but spiritually he is the believing baby. As the latter, he will not be lost and cast away along with the former.

Paul leaves no doubt that "His people which He foreknew" refers to the faithful obedient believing "remnant according to the election of grace", in Romans 11:4,5.

So Paul's question in effect is:
“Has God cast away the believing remnant of ethnic Israelites, His people whom He foreknew; because the majority of ethnic Israelites are unbelievers who are cast away”?

His answer is:
“No; I'm an ethnic Israelite, of whom the majority are unbelievers; but I myself am a believer, which makes me one of His people whom He foreknew, one of the "remnant according to the election of grace"; and I'm thus one of those who is not cast away”.

God has only one people of Israel who are “His people whom He foreknew”, and they are His "believing baby" faithful obedient remnant according to the election of grace, who are not cast away with the "unbelieving bathwater".

They and faithful obedient believing Gentiles are grafted together to comprise all Israel (Romans 11:26) who are saved from sin, and in the end will be saved from eternal punishment.


Obviously God is not going to cast the believing Jews out with the unbelieving Jews and the reason why He has not cast the nation of Israel out is because He said He never would and the day is coming that the salvation of the nation of Israel will be fulfilled.

Paul sorrowed because he knew that the persistent rejection of the Gospel would lead to devastating judgment upon his people, which it did, but he also knew that it would not be the end of them. (Rom. 9:27, 11:26)
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus already rules over the heavens and earth from the throne (heaven is his throne). What NT scripture states his throne will be on earth?


Revelation chapter 20: He is ruling and reigning on the earth.




Your source link, while listing a general consensus on the basic meaning of oikumene, nevertheless reveals disagreement amongst the different concordances and lexicons as to the proper usage. Not all agree that the proper usage was meant to refer strictly to the Roman empire.


So you believe 1st century John is still alive today?


The cited passage leaves open that possibility. Historically, there were attempts to kill the Apostle John, but all had failed which was why he was exiled to the Island of Patmos.


So we shouldn't connect literal signs in the heavens then with earthly events, right? because that is what astrology is.


Apparently, you do not know what astrology is. Astrology consists of a zodiac and horoscopes. The signs that Jesus tells us to look for have nothing to do with that. Anything beyond what God Himself has told us to look for is forbidden.


So you do appear to believe the vineyard owner came to destroy the wicked tenants via the roman armies destroying Jerusalem in 70ad.

Would you agree that this is when the kingdom was taken from the wicked tenants and given to the nation already producing its fruit
?


He visited judgment upon them by way of the Roman armies, but who is the nation to whom He has given the land over to? Not the Church. We do not inhabit or govern the land, but rather, our presence is in every nation. Every other Gentile nation that has occupied Israel no longer occupies it and it has been given back to the Jews.


This is what your incorrect premise is based on. You are taking the 1st data set (1990) and the last data set (2018) and ignoring everything in the middle. Yes, by simply counting the number of earthquakes, 2018 has a sum total more than 1990. However, there are several factors to take into account

1.) if we include all the years between 1990 and 2018, then no, earthquakes have not increased as a grand total. There are increases and decreases, which do not demonstrate an overall increase in earthquakes from 1990 to 2018.

2.) equipment and record keeping of earthquakes has improved over the last 2 decades, thus it is not an increase in frequency, but an improvement in detecting and recording earthquakes.


3.) only data form 1990 until 2018 is available, thus the whole picture is not available, especially if the claim is that earthquake frequencies have been increasing since Jesus' time.


I am not the one who has ignored everything in the middle. You are the one who has done that. The data is fluctuative, with periods of increases and decreases, but overall, an increase is shown. Maybe not a sharp or rapid increase, but an increase nonetheless.

We could get an even clear picture if we were to take the time to acquire all the data and historical records of earthquakes around the world that have taken place between the first coming of Christ and now, but that would take several days, weeks, months, and maybe even years to do.


The data being discussed is not undetectable earthquakes. It pertains to magnitudes 5 and greater, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.


You are crediting data showing an increase in the frequency of earthquakes felt to improvements in
detection technology. While such technological advancements may detect previously unnoticeable seismic activity, they have nothing to do in uncovering the number of earthquakes that are felt except to assign a magnitude to them.

If there is increased reporting of earthquakes felt around the world, it is because there are more earthquakes taking place as Jesus said there would be.


This argument doesn't even make sense considering the fact that Jesus never even states that earthquakes would increase.

The context implies an escalation of these things as will be explained shortly.

People often mistake wars and natural phenomon (earthquakes, tsunamis, famines etc...) with the end of the world. But Jesus tells us it is not so.

mark 13:7-8 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.


But He did say these were the beginning of birth pains or sorrows which are precursors leading up to the end. But if an escalation of these things is not implied, then for Him to say that things would come that were already taking place would make no sense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What Zechariah 13:9 actually says is; Then I shall pass this third thru the fire and refine them..… Paralleled by Isaiah 4:3 and Isaiah 6:13, Ezekiel 21:1-7, where it shows that far less than 1/3 will survive. Only a remnant of the Jews, those who have accepted Jesus now; will join with the Christian House of Israel and go to live in all of the holy Land. Jeremiah 50:4-5, Romans 9:24-27
So your belief of a Jewish redemption is wrong. The only people of God, are those who believe in God, accept the Atoning sacrifice of Jesus and keep the Commandments.
Remember; God has NO favorites. Romans 2:11


Zechariah 3:9 says that two thirds will die, but never does he say that any of the remaining third that is passed through the fire and refined will die. As for the passages that supposedly parallel Zechariah, they were fulfilled when God completed his judgment against Israel by the hand of Babylon.



Thinking that the Jewish nation of Israel is the only Israel, displays a failure to understand what being an Israelite means. We see them in each of the 7 Churchs of Revelation 2 & 3. They are the Overcomers, the Victorious ones for God, the spiritual descendants of Jacob.
The nations of all the holy Land area will all be gone, Jeremiah 12:14, Ezekiel 30:1-5, Zephaniah 1:14-18, + and it will be every faithful Christian, who will occupy their heritage: Romans 8:16-18, Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:26-29


The seven Churches are never called Israel and most of the churches, especially Laodicea, were not the Overcomers that they were supposed to be due to the sin, backsliding, complacency, and false doctrines harbored in their congregations. The only two churches out of the seven that serve as the best examples of what overcomers should be were Smyrna, who held fast to Christ despite the persecution they were facing and Philadelphia who was commended for their steadfastness.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.