Did the event of 1948 Israel fulfill any Bible prophecy?

[mkgal1]

Not in the least! But it is not he fulfillment of what God said He would do for Israel in Jeremiah.

Then what do YOU believe it is? Peter's audience were shown to be "fellow Israelites"..."Judeans" and Peter was addressing "all Israel" - but you are dismissing this, making the statement that the New Covenant that pertains to Jews is still off in the future.

Maybe it isn't the fulfillment of what YOU expect (and the requirements YOU have for the fulfillment of Jeremiah) - but I believe (along with most of Christianity) that this was His fulfillment of the pouring out His spirit as promised in Jeremiah.

 

[nolidad]

Then what do YOU believe it is? Peters audience were shown to be "fellow Israelites"..."Judeans" and Peter was addressing "all Israel" - but you are dismissing this, making the statement that the New Covenant that pertains to Jews is still off in the future.

Maybe it isn't the fulfillment of what YOU expect (and the requirements YOU have for the fulfillment of Jeremiah) - but I believe (along with most of Christianity) that this was His fulfillment of the pouring out His spirit as promised in Jeremiah.

It doesn't matter what I believe it is, what matters is what Scripture says it is.

Acts 2:
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Peter said what happened was fulfilment of JOEL not JEREMIAH!

Maybe it isn't the fulfillment of what YOU expect (and the requirements YOU have for the fulfillment of Jeremiah) - but I believe (along with most of Christianity) that this was His fulfillment of the pouring out His spirit as promised in Jeremiah.

Show me anywhere in Jeremiah or Lamnetations where the pouring out of Gods Spirit is part of teh New Covenant?

All I see is this:

Jeremiah 31:31-37 King James Version (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.

This has not happened as Prophesied, so it is still to happen in the future! Verse 34 not all Israel and Judah know th eLord and God said they all would at some point in the future.

Paul confirmed this in Romans 11:

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

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:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

I expect God to fulfill HIs word as he inspired it. Not a close enough fulfillment.

 

[jgr]

The verses you quoted from were a scene from heaven.



Wrong again! for the Matthew account speaks of the mid point of Daniels 70th week! Jesus said in teh Matthew account- once this happened the WORLD will see tribulation as it had not seen prior nor will ever see again. Lukes passage was the judgment on Jerusalem Jesus pronounced after Israel had committed the unpardonable sin in Matt. 12

Your opinion notwithstanding- the world saw greater tribulation before Rome encompassed Jerusalem and it has seen worse since!

I love Spurgeon- but here he is wrong! Spurgeon did not think that Israel would ever be back in their land again as prophesied!

Once again let us look at both!

Luke 21:
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

When Rome encompassed Jeruslaem- it was the days of vengeance. Jerusalem would be trodden down by gentiles UNTIL the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (a future restoration of Jerusalem)

So the result of Rome was to fulfill the vengeance as written!

Now MAtthew:

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The sign in Luke was Jerusalem circled by armies. The sign in Matthew is a person standing in the Holy of Holies!

Luke- Jerusalem trodden by Gentiles for an undefined time.

Matthew trouble over the world as has never been seen!

The church has been so guilty of eisegesis and sloppy reading of Scripture. Just because there are similar admonitions- does not make the events the same. And here there are massive differences.

Paul spoke of the man of sin in the holy of holies declaring himself he is God- If you reject a third temple in the 70 th week then you need the man of sin in Herods temple and that never happened.

If you reject a tribulation temple- then you need to show when this happened:

Revelation 11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Rome did not enter Jerusalem until Titus came back after going back to Rome to see his father Vespasian become Cesar! Then when he returned He went in and ransacked Jerusalme. The legion was ordered not to destroy the temple, but when they burned the city- the temple caught fire and the gold melted between tyhe bricks so that when cooled they dismantled the temple to get the gold Thus fulfilling Jesus prophesy!

I invite you to provide the name of any defender of the true faith prior to the 19th century who did not believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are fully parallel accounts.

Awaiting.

 

[mkgal1]

It doesn't matter what I believe it is, what matters is what Scripture says it is.

This is a cop out. We should all be aware that Scripture can "say" whatever a person interprets it to say (or else there'd be no need for most of these threads).

Suggesting that Scripture "says" what you base your interpretation on - and then add in "it doesn't matter what I believe it is" seems like an appeal to authority fallacy to me.

 

[mkgal1]

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

.....and for the disciples and the 3,000 at Pentecost? They are of the House of Israel (and you said their covenant is still future). Does this New Covenant not apply to them (even though Jesus slid the cup of that covenant over to them to drink - which symbolizes acceptance of a covenant) or how does that work in your belief framework? Why did Peter address them at Pentecost?

 

[nolidad]

I invite you to provide the name of any defender of the true faith prior to the 19th century who did not believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are fully parallel accounts.

There may not be! The church was still arising out of the dark ages. Eschatology was not a well researched position back then. The believers, now that they were able to have bibles of their own and not be punished with up to death by a ruling church as in the dark ages- were more concerned with establishing and building the more critical doctrines.\

Allegorism and covenental theology were still the most popular that got its start or popularization with Augustine back in the fourth century. It was forced upon the people by the church of the dark ages.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that literalism and and a dispensational biew of biblical hisotry grew in popularity.

This was in response to the Europeanm higher schools of criticism who were tearing apart scripture worse than the allegorical interprewtation of Scripture had already done.

But when saved Jews came to the forefront of the church (Eddersheim, Keil and Delitszch) and late this past century (Fruchtenbaum) did we get a far better understanding of Gods promises to Israel!

And frankly I don't care how many people think that the different portions of the Olivet Dicourse are saying the same thing when they are kind of close to each other.

Scripture speaks for Scripture and Matthew and Mark have not been fulfilled! We have not seen tribulation described. Another problem with your opinion in these verses :

20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

If the elect here is the church- they were already spared for they left for Pella before the destruction of Jerusalem took place- they were not even in the tribulation!

 

[mkgal1]

If the House of Israel has to wait for THEIR covenant - then what's going on here, at the Last Supper and what is Paul speaking about?

Quoting from linked sermon:
Fifth Sunday after Pentecost – Psalm 116:1-13; I Corinthians 11:23-26; The Cup of Salvation – Paul is writing to the Corinthians. A church he knew well seemed to know many of the members of the congregation individually, and therefore, seemed to have a correspondence where he knew what was happening at the church. He writes to them these words:

“For I received from the Lord what I also handed onto you. That the Lord Jesus, on the night that he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread. And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, he took the cup, also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.'” ~ The Cup of Salvation – Kalamazoo First Presbyterian Church​

 

[mkgal1]

The church was still arising out of the dark ages. Eschatology was not a well researched position back then. The believers, now that they were able to have bibles of their own and not be punished with up to death by a ruling church as in the dark ages- were more concerned with establishing and building the more critical doctrines.\

Ahh.....I see. So this is the defense. The church didn't get it "right" until modern times (in your belief). No wonder your version of Scripture is upside down from the early church's version.

 

[mkgal1]

It doesn't matter what I believe it is, what matters is what Scripture says it is.

Acts 2:
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Peter said what happened was fulfilment of JOEL not JEREMIAH!

My mistake (I'm getting my prophets confused). But, I agree with you. Peter DID say that (so why did you deny that's been fulfilled earlier?). I also believe it's key to recognize that just preceding what Peter had quoted from Joel is this:

from Joel 2:27: You will know that I am present in Israel and that I am Yahweh your God, and there is no other. My people will never again be put to shame.​

 

[mkgal1]

Jeremiah's prophecy was also fulfilled, though.

Quoting Adam Maarschalk:
Jeremiah’s Prophecy of a New Covenant for the House of Israel

Jeremiah, a prophet of Judah before and during the Babylonian exile (586 – 538 BC), delivered a key promise to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, a promise of coming days when God would establish a new covenant:

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).


In this promise of a new covenant, we see the following elements:

Participants in this covenant: [1] God [2] the house of Israel, and the house of Judah*

Nature of this covenant: Not according to the covenant made at Mount Sinai, which was broken by the house of Israel

Features of this covenant: [1] God’s laws in their hearts and minds [2] The house of Israel is God’s people, and He is their God [3] Everyone in the house of Israel will know the Lord, from the least to the greatest [4] God will forgive their sins and remember them no more.

*The houses of Israel and Judah were separated soon after Solomon’s death around 975 BC. The Assyrians captured Israel (the northern kingdom) in 722 BC, and Babylon would defeat Judah and Jerusalem in 586 BC.

Has Jeremiah’s prophecy come true? Has a new covenant been established with the house of Israel? Some insist that the answer to these questions is “no”:


Those who believe this way apparently insist that we identify “the house of Israel,” even now, as national Israel. This assumption acts as a powerful filter against the idea that the new covenant has already been established:

• It matters not that Jesus explicitly said His blood was to be poured out in order to give birth to the new covenant, “made with many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28), the very purpose for which Jeremiah said it was designed.
• It matters not that Paul said he and his co-workers in the gospel were “ministers of the new covenant,” which he likened to “the ministry of the Spirit” and “the ministry of righteousness.” Paul’s ministry excelled the “ministry of death, written and engraved on stones” and ready to pass away (II Corinthians 3:5-11).
• It matters not that Paul gave an “analogy of two covenants,” one represented by Mount Sinai (the birthplace of the old covenant), a woman in bondage, and earthly Jerusalem, which was about to be cast out; and the other covenant representing the “Jerusalem above,” which is free and “the mother of us all” (Galatians 4:21-31).
• It matters not that the author of Hebrews states that Jesus “has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6).
• It matters not that the author of Hebrews immediately goes on to quote from Jeremiah’s prophecy and explicitly states (Hebrews 8:6-13) that this New Covenant had been established in his own time (i.e. the first century AD), even as the first covenant had been made obsolete and was ready to vanish away.
• It matters not that Hebrews 12:22-24 says that the church had already “come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.”
• It matters not that “the New Testament” is named as such due to its unveiling of God’s new covenant.
  
  
  One of the many cures for this hangup can be found in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians. Notice the vocabulary that Paul uses in the following passage (Eph. 2:11-22):
  
  11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In Him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
  
  There are plenty of gems worth unpacking in this beautiful passage, but I’ve highlighted two sections to examine (verses 12 and 19-21), as well as three phrases which I believe relate to Jeremiah’s prophecy:
• • “the commonwealth of Israel“
  • “the household of God“
  • “a dwelling place for God“
  
  
  ~ God’s Promise of A New Covenant to the House of Israel

 

[nolidad]

Still no Scripture restricting the covenant rights, benefits, and blessings of Gentiles within Israel.

Still no Scripture identifying them as "inferior".

Or have you been citing the Talmud as Scripture??

Still waiting for Scripture.

My god you strain at gnats!

Inferior doesn't mean lesser spiritually! It means they could not enter the inner court (latter called the court of the Jews) nor receive a portion of the land promised to the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob by covenant! It had to do with life in teh theocratic kingdom until the 2nd temple was destroyed!

Show me where they can receive land inheritance or enter the inner court!

 

[nolidad]

I think you're misunderstanding the request.

We aren't asking for support that there WAS a wall of partition (that's understood there was). What I am asking for is Scripture that states it was GOD's instruction for it to be built. You've made the statement that Jesus and the Father CREATED the separation....but just because something happened doesn't mean God approved.

I believe it was just another discriminatory and burdensome barrier the religious leaders were imposing on people (on their own....NOT being instructed by God to do so). THAT is one of the main grievances I see that Jesus had against them - they were "shutting the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces" (Matthew 23:13) and He pronounced an impending doom upon them because of it (and what He said would happen, happened).

Well you can believe what you want.

But the wall separating the court of teh women from the court of the gentiles wasn't built until Herods day!

but in Solomons temple and the rebuilt temple under zerubabbel the outer court had no wall. That was where non Jews could go, drop off their sacrifice to the priests (if they were a proselyte). Jewish women could go further, but they could not enter into teh inner court aka court of the Jews, so I guess in you rmind God is racist and sexist! After all He doesn't allow woment o be elders in the church still!

If you want a detailed explanation with scriptures, I encourage you to guy A. Eddersheim's book "The Temple." It goes into great great detail fo construction, use and history .

 

[jgr]

There may not be! The church was still arising out of the dark ages. Eschatology was not a well researched position back then. The believers, now that they were able to have bibles of their own and not be punished with up to death by a ruling church as in the dark ages- were more concerned with establishing and building the more critical doctrines.\

Allegorism and covenental theology were still the most popular that got its start or popularization with Augustine back in the fourth century. It was forced upon the people by the church of the dark ages.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that literalism and and a dispensational biew of biblical hisotry grew in popularity.

This was in response to the Europeanm higher schools of criticism who were tearing apart scripture worse than the allegorical interprewtation of Scripture had already done.

But when saved Jews came to the forefront of the church (Eddersheim, Keil and Delitszch) and late this past century (Fruchtenbaum) did we get a far better understanding of Gods promises to Israel!

And frankly I don't care how many people think that the different portions of the Olivet Dicourse are saying the same thing when they are kind of close to each other.

Scripture speaks for Scripture and Matthew and Mark have not been fulfilled! We have not seen tribulation described. Another problem with your opinion in these verses :

20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

If the elect here is the church- they were already spared for they left for Pella before the destruction of Jerusalem took place- they were not even in the tribulation!

Riiiiiiight. The standard rhetoric of modernism and cultism:

"We are truth. Truth had disappeared until we appeared."

"The prophetic truth, faith, vision, and sacrifice of the historical defenders of the faith is but dung to us."

Dispensationalism.

A heresy of arrogance.

A heresy of ignorance.

The new apostasy.

 

[jgr]

My god you strain at gnats!

Inferior doesn't mean lesser spiritually! It means they could not enter the inner court (latter called the court of the Jews) nor receive a portion of the land promised to the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob by covenant! It had to do with life in teh theocratic kingdom until the 2nd temple was destroyed!

Show me where they can receive land inheritance or enter the inner court!

You were first to make the claim. It is entirely unsurprising that you're unable to Scripturally defend it.

Perhaps spend a little less time in the talmud.

 

[nolidad]

Riiiiiiight. The standard rhetoric of modernism and cultism:

"We are truth. Truth had disappeared until we appeared."

"The prophetic truth, faith, vision, and sacrifice of the historical defenders of the faith is but dung to us."

So you are a defender of the church of the dark ages then? A member even?

With its worship of people, and other doctrines not found in the bible at all?

Not wishing to single out the Roman church (as all denominations have their skeletons)

But let us look at the facts.

Purgatory
Losing your salvation
indulgences
the rosary
holy water
mortal and venial sin
suppression of bible reading for over a millenia for the masses
the Inquisitions
Papal infallibility
ex-cathedra pronouncements et. al

so are you saying this is defending the truth?

The new apostasy.

I guess you have a disdain for Luther, Calvin, Swingli, Tyndale, Huss and others for breaking away from a millenia of "truth" until they came along as well!

So you believe that those who hold to a literal/historical/grammatical interpretation of scripture are unsaved! WOW!

 

[nolidad]

You were first to make the claim. It is entirely unsurprising that you're unable to Scripturally defend it.

Perhaps spend a little less time in the talmud.

Well I do not study the talmud.

But I do read scripture and I do know that women could not enter the inner court (the court of the Jews) and gentiles stayed outside!

Given that the instructions were for Jews in temple worship and you cannot find an instruction allowing gentiles into the inner court or even the court of women- I can't prove a negative. But I will gladly change my mind if you can show a verse allowing gentiles into the court of the Jews.

As for teh land inheritance- Just read how it was divided- no provision was made for non Jews!

It is comparable to a will. If you are not in there- yu get nada!

 

[mkgal1]

so I guess in you rmind God is racist and sexist! After all He doesn't allow woment o be elders in the church still!

Not in my mind at all. You have yet to provide ANY support that this was on God's instruction .

God allows women to be leaders in the church & to preach just fine (who was it that He showed Himself to first after He resurrected?). God's not racist or a misogynist - but that doesn't put a stop to people using Him to put a stamp of approval on their personal biases. Jesus is the exact representation of God. When there's a doubt about God's character? Look to Jesus (not to what men have done!)

 

[jgr]

But I do read scripture and I do know that women could not enter the inner court (the court of the Jews) and gentiles stayed outside!

Where is that in Scripture?
Or is it in the talmud?

Given that the instructions were for Jews in temple worship and you cannot find an instruction allowing gentiles into the inner court or even the court of women- I can't prove a negative. But I will gladly change my mind if you can show a verse allowing gentiles into the court of the Jews.

Where is that in Scripture?
Or is it in the talmud?

As for teh land inheritance- Just read how it was divided- no provision was made for non Jews!

Where is that in Scripture?
Or is it in the talmud?

It is comparable to a will. If you are not in there- yu get nada!

Where is that in Scripture?
Or is it in the talmud?

 

[mkgal1]

Here are a few passages that show what God has said (as recorded in our Holy Scriptures). I've yet to find just one statute that makes a distinction between someone that was native to the land (in ancient times) and a "stranger" that sojourned with them:

Exodus 12:49 ~ "The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you."

Leviticus 24:22 ~ There shall be one standard for you; it shall be for the stranger as well as the native, for I am the LORD your God.'"

Numbers 9:14 ~ 'If an alien sojourns among you and observes the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its ordinance, so he shall do; you shall have one statute, both for the alien and for the native of the land.'"

Numbers 15:15 ~ 'As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the LORD.

Exodus 12:19 ~ Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is an alien or a native of the land.

Numbers 15:26 ~ 'So all the congregation of the sons of Israel will be forgiven, with the alien who sojourns among them, for it happened to all the people through error.

Joshua 20:9 ~ These were the appointed cities for all the sons of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them, that whoever kills any person unintentionally may flee there, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood until he stands before the congregation.

Numbers 19:10 ~ 'The one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; and it shall be a perpetual statute to the sons of Israel and to the alien who sojourns among them.

Isaiah 56 ~

Salvation for Foreigners

This is what the LORD says:

“Maintain justice and do what is right,

for My salvation is coming soon,

and My righteousness will be revealed.

Blessed is the man who does this,

and the son of man who holds it fast,

who keeps the Sabbath without profaning it,

and keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

Let no foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say,

“The LORD will utterly exclude me from His people.”
​

 

[jgr]

So you are a defender of the church of the dark ages then? A member even?

With its worship of people, and other doctrines not found in the bible at all?

Not wishing to single out the Roman church (as all denominations have their skeletons)

But let us look at the facts.

Purgatory
Losing your salvation
indulgences
the rosary
holy water
mortal and venial sin
suppression of bible reading for over a millenia for the masses
the Inquisitions
Papal infallibility
ex-cathedra pronouncements et. al

so are you saying this is defending the truth?



I guess you have a disdain for Luther, Calvin, Swingli, Tyndale, Huss and others for breaking away from a millenia of "truth" until they came along as well!

So you believe that those who hold to a literal/historical/grammatical interpretation of scripture are unsaved! WOW!

Entirely predictably, dispensationalism is unable to distinguish between true faith and false faith.

The latter was manifest in the historical apostate papacy.

But God has always preserved His “7,000” even through that era, and raised up the Reformers to reclaim His true Church of true faith.

It is risible to see a dispensational reference to the Reformers, for the Reformation historicist recognition of the historical apostate papacy as the little horn of Daniel 7, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2, and the predominant antichrist of its era; is anathema to dispensationalism's futurism.

Dispensationalism's inability to distinguish true faith from false faith is in reality a deliberate refusal to do so, for dispensationalism's futurism originates in the apostate papacy's counter-reformation and the Jesuit Francisco Ribera's In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarii comissioned by said papacy to blunt Reformation revelation and proclamation of the papacy's fulfillment of the aforestated Scriptures.

As Clarence Larkin, dispensational apologist and author of the incongruously-entitled Dispensational Truth admitted in describing dispensationalism's futurism, “In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist," and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.”

The compendium of dispensational fallacy is voluminous indeed.