Left Desolate

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Our futurist and 2P2P friends point out the word "forever" in the OT in connection with Israel's entitlement to the land. Whether it should or not, the English meaning of 'forever' rules their thinking; it is thought it will go on without end. There are several examples otherwise, but I won't go into them.

So let us look at the declaration of Mt 23. The house would be left desolate. In normal usage, this is irreversible. It is truly left shattered and blasted. That would be the normal meaning. So, why do our futurist friends think something is going to happen? Aren't we supposed to go with the plain meaning.
 

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Depends on exactly what one deciphers the House to represent. If it's foretold that the House in Matt 23 is the House of The Lord, deduced from the majority of the chapter focused around that house, then no it's not the same as the entire "nation/land". The left desolate can mean exactly that, God will no longer dwell in a temple nor ark.

The veil being ripped can get used here as well to re establish this point, the temple(~33ad-70ad) and any future temple will remain desolate of Gods presence inside it.

So yes a 3rd temple would get rebuilt, again we see "Israel" blinded to Jesus as the messiah, so they would build it and not immediately know God is done with it. Their intent would at first G the bringing back of the dead sacrificial system, though the true intent would G for the man of sin to fully open their eyes.

Leaving Gods promise about the land still intact and active, allowing and meaning God never went back on His word, regardless if He could because His children abandoned Him.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Well the Nt sure missed that one--the one about the land! There's nothing.

But to back up, what on earth does "the true intent (of rebuilding the obsolete sacrificial system) would be for the man of sin to open their eyes"? To what? What kind of eyes?

And, the man of sin is the figure from Dan 8:13 who led the 'rebellion that desolates' which is the event in the mid 1st century when the 490 years were over.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,784
3,423
Non-dispensationalist
✟360,216.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Well the Nt sure missed that one--the one about the land! There's nothing.

But to back up, what on earth does "the true intent (of rebuilding the obsolete sacrificial system) would be for the man of sin to open their eyes"? To what? What kind of eyes?

And, the man of sin is the figure from Dan 8:13 who led the 'rebellion that desolates' which is the event in the mid 1st century when the 490 years were over.

Daniel 8:
12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

Transgression of desolation - the little horn after he becomes the King of Israel, goes into the temple, sits and claims to be God. 2thessalonians2.

Abomination of desolation
- the statue image made of the former little horn, after he commits the transgression of desolation.

God has him killed for the transgression (Ezekiel 28:1-10). Then once the Antichrist finds himself in hell, taunted there, God in his disdain for him, brings him back to life. Which the world sees as a miracle (but is the strong delusion that God sends) and be dumbfounded, thinking he is indeed God, and the false prophet has the statue image of him made. And the statue image placed in the temple, as the Abomination of desolation.

The prince who shall come, the little horn, has to come from the Romans, the people who destroyed the temple and city. So he cannot originate from Israel.

The person has to be a Jew to transgress the covenant. Yet, he cannot originate from Israel. Your candidate doesn't qualify.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Well the Nt sure missed that one--the one about the land! There's nothing.

But to back up, what on earth does "the true intent (of rebuilding the obsolete sacrificial system) would be for the man of sin to open their eyes"? To what? What kind of eyes?

And, the man of sin is the figure from Dan 8:13 who led the 'rebellion that desolates' which is the event in the mid 1st century when the 490 years were over.

Firstly, because the New Testament does not mention a passage in the Old Testament does not mean that the Old Testament does not hold importance, nor promises or prophecy that is still active/future. The New Testament is nothing more than a continuation of Gods Holy Word. The best way I can try to again make this point clear is as follows- one can not become saved without the New Testament. One can not explain why we needed Jesus as our savior without the Old Testament. You need both old and new because both are Gods Word, both are important with our spiritual growth with our Father and Lord Jesus.

Well before you attempt to dismiss the allowance of Israel retaining and reclaiming the "land", you would have to show where God's promise of the land was conditional. An because your refute is that it's not in the "nt"; show where the "nt" creates the point where God was alleviated of all his Old Testament promises. Now keep in mind I'm referring to the physical land and "physical, literal descendants.

Duet 4:40 shows that a condition of obeying God and his commandments, promises the descendants long lives in Israel. It does not show that the physical land would no longer belong to Israel- Abrahams son Isaac's descendants. Gen 26:3

Now if you'd like to continue thinking that Israel has no literal and physical promise needing of fulfillment- please show me where and what time period gen 15:18-21 ; josh 1:4 was fulfilled and explain why it's not that way today. Why would God go back on his promise if it was previously fulfilled.

Now for your comment about what the man of sin has to do with opening/revealing the eyes/truth to "Jews" I'll concur it's my opinion, but it's my answer to how the Jews will see the truth that Jesus did come and was sacrificed on the cross-the fullness of the Gentiles being complete-the un hardening of Israel rom 11:25.

They will build another temple, the man of sin-ac will sit in a room he ought not G. Declare himself god. He will create that agreement with the Jews and deceive them in the middle of that treaty.

While yes you feel it's already fulfilled, I don't. An even my renditions show where both the land promise can finally become fulfilled, while the desolation of the house remains fulfilled also.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
All the promises and all the covenants with Israel are fulfilled in the Gospel about justification: Acts 13's sermon's punchline; Eph 2:12.

Other than saving Israel from the horror of 66+, the land does not matter as it used to. They had returned from exile. What they were waiting for was the Spirit. You can't shift all this (return and Spirit) to our future when they were waiting on it right then, and it came, and the mission to the nations came.

Rom 4, 9, Gal 3 show that God's promise was not to the descendants after all. It was to those who had faith. Judaism thought (Gal 3:17) that the Law voided and replaced the promise. That is the "replacement" theology we should be discussing. They thought the promise was the land forever, and their descendancy forever, and sustained by ritual and observance of the Law forever. But Paul preaches Abraham, a Persian, who has Isaac while infertile, and who believes and gains imputed righteousness before circumcision. You can hardly preclude things more completely than that!

Heb 11 says that the land was not even what those who had faith were looking for. It wasn't where they were going, nor where they came from (v14). It was heaven. "Only together with us" would they recieve it--the blessing of the Gospel (v40). None of them recieved what was promised, v39. We all now have a city that hovers above earth but is our true mother, Gal 4, Heb 12.
 
Upvote 0

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
How is it that the man of sin tells the Jews the Gospel? That's getting worse than Outer Limits fiction, to me!

Something has to get the remaining Jews who deny Christ and believe in God to open their eyes to his crucifixion, I feel it's the man of sin in the 3rd temple claiming he's god and stopping their system. Yes, we as Christians can preach and evangelize all day and many have converted, yet many holdfast that the messiah has yet to come. I think that future event (AoD) is the unveiling of the truth to the Jews who holdfast that The messiah has not come.

An the idea it's outer limits fiction coming from you, that's funny. Though seriously something triggers the remnant Jews into fulfilling Matt 23:39; Hosea 5:15; acts 3:19-21

If you have a truer or better rendition of what event allows Israel to acknowledge they crucified Jesus and he is The Lord and messiah I'm all ears.

An I'm not implying the man of sin preaches or teaches any gospel, I'm saying I think he's the tool God will utilize to open their eyes and hearts.
 
Upvote 0

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
All the promises and all the covenants with Israel are fulfilled in the Gospel about justification: Acts 13's sermon's punchline; Eph 2:12.

We are not discussing justification- we are discussing entitlement to land. Even in eph 2:12 it's making a distinction about Gentiles being aliens to the commonwealth of Israel.
Common wealth
2 : a nation, state, or other political unit:

Other than saving Israel from the horror of 66+, the land does not matter as it used to. They had returned from exile. What they were waiting for was the Spirit. You can't shift all this (return and Spirit) to our future when they were waiting on it right then, and it came, and the mission to the nations came.

Again, real simple when did Israel have the full land in possession that God had promised abraham- and explain why it's not so today. The land matters because God himself promised it and iterated that promise detailing the borders 2x. Yet it's not at those borders is it, meaning either it's yet to come or Gods promise was void in fulfillment.......Isaiah 55:11

Rom 4, 9, Gal 3 show that God's promise was not to the descendants after all. It was to those who had faith. Judaism thought (Gal 3:17) that the Law voided and replaced the promise. That is the "replacement" theology we should be discussing. They thought the promise was the land forever, and their descendancy forever, and sustained by ritual and observance of the Law forever. But Paul preaches Abraham, a Persian, who has Isaac while infertile, and who believes and gains imputed righteousness before circumcision. You can hardly preclude things more completely than that!

Again, we are not talking about justification, we are talking about a distinct promise regarding only land. While descendants gets seen spiritual at times, not regarding to the actual land of Israel. Faith has almost zero bearing on the land, the only one who needed faith regarding that land was Abraham, after him believing it was allotted to his descendants forever. You then can track which descendants because it was promised to Isaac again. Now if those descendants dwelling in the land had no faith in God they were punished but the land is still promised to them.
The law in gal 3:17 has zero bearing on Gods promise of the land given to abraham and his descendants through Isaac.

Heb 11 says that the land was not even what those who had faith were looking for. It wasn't where they were going, nor where they came from (v14). It was heaven. "Only together with us" would they recieve it--the blessing of the Gospel (v40). None of them recieved what was promised, v39. We all now have a city that hovers above earth but is our true mother, Gal 4, Heb 12.

Context inter, context first.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

Return where? Where'd they come out of? Oh that place promised to Abraham...Israel.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Yes we desire a better "country" we desire heaven- we as in those whom believe in The Lord Jesus, we as in whom lived for God and await the kingdom at hand. Not those living apart from the truth of The Lord and God.

Because in context we see: 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Again any particular promise stand out here that applies to this topic....why yes land, land, and more land, Israel. Though what your using to refute actual Israel is the future promise and belief of living in heaven with our Father- that isn't the question and does not negate Gods promise of land to abraham and his descendants.

Now for 39-40 restate your point- is it the promise of salvation through the gospel of Jesus death or you saying God makes promises and can later change them for something better?

Because the only thing I've gathered regarding this topics point is your thinking God is not going to fulfill his promise exactly and instead give something better...........while that is great since its better, is that not deception though? If he does not fulfill his promise of that particular land, does that not prove his word came back VOID, impossible Isaiah 55:11. We are talking about the entitlement to Israel per your original post, justification and salvation are a different subject.

Stop being blinded to scripture. One promise to abraham of land is exactly that- land. Abraham had more than one promise. You can not use a spiritual descendancy with a tangible item as Israel. The land is clearly marked by known tangible boundaries- it is in scripture, I cited the scripture- refute the scripture I cited regarding promised land, with scripture focusing on tangible aspects. Or show me where God can recant his unconditional promise.

Now in case you were not inclined to look up verses I'll post them here for you to clearly and concisely refute. Explain why Israel does not own all this land today, and show in history when they did. For if they haven't owned it all it's still future, if it's still future, then Israel the country matters because it's in the future.

Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Josh 1:2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.

Gen 26:3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

Exodus 23:30-31
Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land. And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Krazed wrote:
We are not discussing justification- we are discussing entitlement to land.

That's just it. The NT doesn't refer to entitlement to the land. You do. The NT says all the promises are fulfilled in the resurrection that is proof of our justification, in Acts 13's sermon and elsewhere. You don't.

Watch out for the veil of Judaism that thinks the OT is all about those Judaic/Judean things. Its a veil. It is lifted away in Christ. That's who all of it is about.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
As for the OP, leaving the house desolate should perhaps not been much of a surprise. He had already announced that he was the temple a few years earlier to them directly, and that the time was coming when no mountain at all would be the place where you go worship God, but rather in spirit and truth.

But it amounts to the same; the land has ceased to have signficance. Try going through 1 Pet 1, 2 or Eph 2B-3A and finding the land still significant, while all the activity of God's work is going forward in both Jews and non-Jews.
 
Upvote 0

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
But it amounts to the same; the land has ceased to have signficance. Try going through 1 Pet 1, 2 or Eph 2B-3A and finding the land still significant, while all the activity of God's work is going forward in both Jews and non-Jews.

I have shown you exactly where the scripture indicates the land having significance and explained why. It is promised to Abrahams descendants through Isaac- not Ishmael. I am unaware anytime in history they owned all the land mentioned, it's obvious today they are not close to it either. If they don't have possession it's significant because Gods word doesn't return void, and I don't see God not fulfilling his promise- regardless if the promise does not have an affect on you or I.

The promise to abraham of land with exact borders was unconditional- if you think otherwise PROVE it, show the condition that the land can get revoked. If you prove your viewpoint is correct through scripture I'll concede my view since I would G in err. Showing that we are all spiritual descendants does not work with a promise regarding a tangible item outlined in scripture. Because even with that understanding, those who are in possession of the land not deemed Israel(but according to scripture belongs) do not worship the Most High nor believe He is the Living God.

Again we agree, the house left desolate is the "temple"(buildings) not the nation/land.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
btw, the "house" is not just the buildings. It is the identity. It is used many times in the OT without reference to a building. In Arabic, today the word 'dar' means a people-group, a movement, a denominator. There is dar Islam, and dar ____ (infidels), for ex.

The major passages of NT blocks of teaching about the promises to Israel never mention the land. Or look at the near-death conflict of Acts 26, when Paul could have mentioned the land, and smoothed over an explosive conversation. He did not. Heb 11 does not. I started the OP with reference to them.

THe most mystifying thing you said is they never had it. Sure they did--if you think that is what the promises were about in an ordinary sense. The empire was a huge chunck of the middle east during Solomon. "The purposes of God were completed in David's time" says Acts 13. But the NT keeps telling us that those supplements or pictures were not ever what the true promise was about, which they now enjoy with us. That is the mentality of heb 11.

There are many "absolute" sounding passages in the OT that aren't. The use of "forever" for ex. Some pagan cities were to be obliterated "forever" but were back in order a few centuries after a destruction... It all has to do with the working memory of the generation at hand.
 
Upvote 0

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
btw, the "house" is not just the buildings. It is the identity. It is used many times in the OT without reference to a building. In Arabic, today the word 'dar' means a people-group, a movement, a denominator. There is dar Islam, and dar ____ (infidels), for ex.

Come on inter, you can't make this mistake this early in our dialogue.
Post #11 As for the OP, leaving the house desolate should perhaps not been much of a surprise. He had already announced that he was the temple a few years earlier to them directly, and that the time was coming when no mountain at all would be the place where you go worship God, but rather in spirit and truth.

Post #1 So let us look at the declaration of Mt 23. The house would be left desolate. In normal usage, this is irreversible. It is truly left shattered and blasted. That would be the normal meaning.

You've established the "house" in question is in reference to the temple, you should not change that position, if you were to change to "land/identity" your opening post is self defeating, or heresy. What happened in 48? 67? If the identity/land were to G left desolate as Jesus said, then he got proven wrong, Israel's identity/land is now no longer "desolate". So while yes, house can have several meanings, it is in reference to the actual temple and not our identity nor land in our usage for this topic.

The major passages of NT blocks of teaching about the promises to Israel never mention the land. Or look at the near-death conflict of Acts 26, when Paul could have mentioned the land, and smoothed over an explosive conversation. He did not. Heb 11 does not. I started the OP with reference to them.

Why do you base your ideas solely off of an apostle not saving his own neck. He might have been able to mention tons of things, if it were Gods will, if it wasn't he would have done exactly what he did, not mention anything. I'm not entirely sure but I do think provoking them to jealousy is part of the reasoning of not mentioning anything to diffuse a situation, and something you should account for in your views.

THe most mystifying thing you said is they never had it. Sure they did--if you think that is what the promises were about in an ordinary sense. The empire was a huge chunck of the middle east during Solomon.

Mystifying, nope not even close. Though maybe you should have paid attention to my previous comments, I obviously am aware of something about what Joshua did in his books, and a lack of mentioning of going to the Euphrates river in his commanded cleansing of the promised land. I just haven't gotten that far in our discussion because you can't break away from the concept that the Land promise is solely different/apart from other promises God has given Abraham and others. But now that you have jumped to Solomon's empire- I'll provide josh 13:1-6

The empire of Solomon -
http://www.imninalu.net/maps_file/DavidEmpire.jpg
http://www.katapi.org.uk/images/Maps/EmpireDavidSolS.jpg
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/Map-Kingdom-of-David-and-Solomon.jpg
Empire David/Solomon

The issue is those borders of "philistines" still existed- even today they exist-Gaza Strip/West Bank. Yet these areas were given to the tribes of judah, benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh.

Did they truly take all the Hittites territory as foretold, or did they not capture the promised portion of it?

Yes Solomon had a huge empire, it still lacked full possession of the land promised to abraham and through his son Isaac's descendants. Claim semantics or technicality all you want, I believe that when God says something in regards to a promise like that it comes to pass exactly as He claims, or the word was void. An since I'm arguing they never had full possession, yes I see it as a future fulfillment prophecy.

To put it in perspective to us why the land holds significance that they don't posses currently Obadiah 1:17-21 Amos 9:9-15

"The purposes of God were completed in David's time" says Acts 13. But the NT keeps telling us that those supplements or pictures were not ever what the true promise was about, which they now enjoy with us. That is the mentality of heb 11.

Inter, purposes of what-context; and keep to the original discussion, land. Yes, Jesus is the king and Lord of Israel(as well us), were talking about land. You've got to understand a purpose of the Gospel is our salvation, but theirs more told from Gods word than Jesus died for our sins. You can sidetrack all you want, land is this topics objective. Fulfilling of a true king or messiah we agree with, but has no affect in our discussion of land the way your using.

There are many "absolute" sounding passages in the OT that aren't. The use of "forever" for ex. Some pagan cities were to be obliterated "forever" but were back in order a few centuries after a destruction... It all has to do with the working memory of the generation at hand.

What are you attempting to say? Gods promise or tellings only apply until it's forgot or the "generation" is dead? So Gods word only lasts for so long and then "poof" no more.........well that doesn't surprise me, you've beat around that bush for a long time and I've played naive to you doing it.
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The house thing is not a mistake. THe term gets used by the apostles to describe the Christian community, not a building. "It is time for judgement to begin in the house of God." He said this when there were 1000s little groups meeting all over the area, so which one did he mean, if he was being literal?
 
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

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The 'not saving the neck' thing is only one piece of several. The major fact is the blocks of doctrinal sections. the 2P2P person strains for Rom 11:26 to mean the land, when it is one place when it can't. They make that strain because there is no other place in the NT where the land is clearly a restored thing.

Modern Israel as a movement began in the 1800s when many people in northern Europe wanted their homelands to thrive, and sometimes just wanted a warmer place to live. Jews in synagogues started to believe that it was their destiny to be in their land, but they did this by reading their OT directly apart from the NT. That should tell you everything. They read it totally apart from the meaning of the events of the 1st century!
 
Upvote 0

Interplanner

Newbie
Aug 5, 2012
11,882
113
near Olympic National Park
✟12,847.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The reason for show that several NT passages dwell on justification by Christ is because what formerly appeared to be about the land was actually about Christ! This is especially true of the "rest" in Heb 4, but the writer means to refer to the Rest that is in Christ now. All things have moved forward to fulfillment in Christ. They are not stuck back in the details and peripherals of the ancient times. We don't go back to circumcision, to sacrifices, to segregated worship spaces, to carefully handled food laws.

Read the sermon in Acts 13 10x, and you'll see: the Gospel (and its mission to the nations) completely overtakes the things that used to matter in the OT setup. What matters now is being a light to the nations in the Light of the Gospel, 13:47 (follow up questions with those in Judaism).
 
Upvote 0

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The reason for show that several NT passages dwell on justification by Christ is because what formerly appeared to be about the land was actually about Christ! This is especially true of the "rest" in Heb 4, but the writer means to refer to the Rest that is in Christ now. All things have moved forward to fulfillment in Christ. They are not stuck back in the details and peripherals of the ancient times. We don't go back to circumcision, to sacrifices, to segregated worship spaces, to carefully handled food laws.

Read the sermon in Acts 13 10x, and you'll see: the Gospel (and its mission to the nations) completely overtakes the things that used to matter in the OT setup. What matters now is being a light to the nations in the Light of the Gospel, 13:47 (follow up questions with those in Judaism).


Show me where Jesus is implied in this scripture:
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Show me where the condition is that God can revoke this inheritance that HE gave Abraham in those verses, or any verses regarding abraham and the land inheritance. Show me in those verses where a time of only "x" years is.

In fact show me any scripture where God will, can, or has revoked an unconditional promise/oath. And keep in mind if you find one, what does that say about our promise of our sins being washed away upon believing and accepting our Lord Jesus.

If the nt nullifies or fulfills all, explain why we still get bows in the sky after rain, if it's all fulfilled through Jesus would they not disappear, would that also mean God can flood the world again.

Certain oaths, promises made in the ot still have merit and significance in our current age inter.

And inter if you think you have shown or can find refuting scripture, I need you to cite chapter and verse(s) your using in refuting all these issues to the exact part your refuting. This way theirs no confusion of what your rendering and me not getting.
 
Upvote 0

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The 'not saving the neck' thing is only one piece of several. The major fact is the blocks of doctrinal sections. the 2P2P person strains for Rom 11:26 to mean the land, when it is one place when it can't. They make that strain because there is no other place in the NT where the land is clearly a restored thing.

Modern Israel as a movement began in the 1800s when many people in northern Europe wanted their homelands to thrive, and sometimes just wanted a warmer place to live. Jews in synagogues started to believe that it was their destiny to be in their land, but they did this by reading their OT directly apart from the NT. That should tell you everything. They read it totally apart from the meaning of the events of the 1st century!

The "modern" Israel movement is fine, but pointless between us. Yes, people have claimed to have found unnumbered amounts of revelation since Jesus left the apostles-Luther/Calvin. The issue is it in scripture, if it is in scripture does the ideal match scripture, not contradict scripture, and follow according to the presumed will of God-not an easy task by any measure.

Many do not view Israel as being obsolete to Gods plan during the end times(keeping in tune that they will accept Jesus as their Lord and savior later). So yes people and land do hold merit in scripture, depending on ones views-while one is only correct, it is supported in scripture. Though ultimately can you provide a reason to not bless those of Israel?

Now rom 11:26 you skipped 25 tsk tsk. You'd have to show when this fullness took place, but more important, when did Israel turn back to God-or collectively turn to Jesus? That is the easier understanding of turning ungodliness(sin) away from Jacob(Israel). For in 27 we see God/Jesus takes away their sins- we know of only one way sins are taken away-repentance and accept of Jesus as our Lord and savior; unless you want to concede that other thread about God "could" forgive anyone he wants(which I don't agree with in this regards/premise).

Again, because it's not covered in the nt does not entirely mean it has no significance.
 
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

KrAZeD

Newbie
Apr 13, 2014
391
14
✟15,602.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The house thing is not a mistake. THe term gets used by the apostles to describe the Christian community, not a building. "It is time for judgement to begin in the house of God." He said this when there were 1000s little groups meeting all over the area, so which one did he mean, if he was being literal?

Cite the chapter and verse please, I can not find this- though I'm thinking it's your understanding.

So you want the house of jerusalem to mean the people/community of Israel- to remain desolate....(Matt 23:37-38) this implication naturally conflicts with scripture, so you might want to go ahead and make your full point again so I know where to better discuss the issue I have with it, since your going to have some gymnastics to do explaining why An Israelite, Jew can not obtain the comforter since their left desolate, or explain why some can't accept Jesus since they must remain desolate and several other key aspects regarding how they can remain desolate but still G Gods elect.
 
Upvote 0