So, apparently The Church Is Israel

[Guojing]

ah yes, Ephesus, Israel
Pergamos, Israel
Sardis, Israel
I'm really familiar with all these Israeli cities

Church simply means "called out assemblies".

During the Tribulation, the program with Israel will resume, that is why I call them Israel churches (Romans 11:25).

That basically means, if a gentile wants to be saved during the Tribulation, he must once again, go thru Israel to be saved.

He must belong to Israel's "called out assembly" to be saved, that is what the term Israel's churches meant.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

What is suggested is not that there isn't a national Israel, is that the National Israel has no further part to play and God is "done" with them and exclusively deals with 'spiritual Israel" now.

God is not done with anyone and never has been, but what you are missing is that when it comes to salvation He deals with individuals, not nations. He wants each individual to repent and put his or her faith in His Son and that's what it's all about.

What Paul did teach is that when the fullness of the Gentiles come in, the blindness in part will be healed and they'll be saved.

You didn't specifically address anything I said. Why not? No, Paul did not teach that. If that was the case, then why did he say that he hoped to help save some of those who were blinded in his day? The way you look at this, those who were blinded were blinded permanently and that would be the case up until the future time when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. But, that cannot possibly be what Paul was teaching or else he would not have said that he hoped to help save some of his fellow Israelites who were blinded in his day.

Yeah, National Israel gave birth to unbelievers, that is, branches broken off in unbelief that God is able to graft back in, when their blindness in part is healed.

I was talking about the woman of Revelation 12. The only children that it references of the Revelation 12 woman are Jesus (Rev 12:5) and those who follow Jesus (Rev 12:17). That is not a description of national Israel.

As for what you said here, do you not understand that some of those branches that were broken off (representing Israelites who were in unbelief and were blinded) in Paul's day ended up being saved? You act as if their blindness was a long-term thing and would not be removed until a later time, but it wasn't a corporate long-term blindness. Each individual unbelieving Israelite was blinded for a time so that the gospel of salvation could go to the Gentiles. Then the plan was for the Gentiles to provoke those blinded Israelites to jealousy so that they too would want to be saved. And a number of them who had been blinded were later saved. That's what you're missing. You're acting as if the partial blindness was a long-term thing that God would only deal with at some much later time, but that is not at all what it's about.

Read Romans 11:11-14 and see for yourself that Paul hoped to lead some of those who were blinded in his day to salvation. In your view, that was impossible because you see the blindness as being a long-term thing and that each one who has been blinded for the past almost 2,000 years had no chance of being saved and that no one who is blinded would ever be saved until a future time. That is NOT what Paul taught.

Remember it is to the unbelieving Pharisees that Jesus said they will not see Him again until they say "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord" (Matthew 23:39) That is, they acknowledge who He is, and they can't do that without the Holy Spirit. So God has to do something to them first.

That verse is badly misunderstood by dispensationalists like yourself. Jesus was talking specifically to and about the Pharisees there and not about Israelites in the distant future. He was telling them, the Pharisees He was talking to, that they in particular would not see Him again unless they said "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord". While some of them did later put their faith in Christ, most did not and, because of that, they ended up being destroyed when their city Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Matthew 23:39 is not some promise to distant future Israelites as dispensationalist imagine. God is not going to one day make all Israelites believe after purposely withholding salvation from most of them for at least 2,000 years as dispensationalists believe. No, God has offered salvation to all of them for the past almost 2,000 years and has not withheld salvation from anyone during that time. Making it as if God will save all of them in the future after purposely withholding salvation from most of them for at least around 2,000 years contradicts the character of God who wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6).

Again, you miss that those who were blinded, like those unbelieving Pharisees, were not blinded for the rest of their lives, but only until the gospel went to the Gentiles after which the Gentiles provoked some of them to jealousy and they became saved. And that has gone on ever since as more and more Jews have been saved over the years and that will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. To look at all of this only from a future perspective causes you to miss the reason that God blinded the unbelieving Israelites. The reason certainly wasn't for the purpose of withholding salvation from most of them for at least 2,000 years until finally one day saving all of them in the future, that's for sure. Yet, that is what you believe, isn't it. Why would God withhold salvation from them for so long only to then save all of them in the future? How would that be fair to all of those who were blinded with (supposedly) no chance of salvation the previous 2,000 or more years?

Paul said "until the fulness of the Gentiles are come in"

and that is a yet future thing.

Yes, but you miss what that means, which I touched on above. What Paul said would happen up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in is that part of Israel would be blinded like they were in Paul's day with the hope that some of them would be provoked to jealousy by the salvation of the Gentiles so that they would be saved as well. That was God's plan for their salvation. That they would be led to salvation by the Gentiles after initially it being the case that the Jews brought the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. That plan has been ongoing for almost 2,000 years now and will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. The idea that all Israelites will be saved one day completely contradicts what Paul taught throughout Romans 11. He taught that salvation is by way of faith, not nationality. Those Israelites who were in unbelief were cut off. Their nationality didn't save them. But, Paul said if they did not continue in their unbelief then they could be grafted back in (Rom 11:23). He was not talking about them corporately there, he was talking about the very individuals who were cut off because of unbelief having the opportunity to be grafted back in if they repented and put their faith in Christ. And some of them did. Paul himself led some of them to salvation, as he talked about in Romans 11:11-14.

and that's where we'll differ. That I still see a yet future, eschatalogical repentence of National Israel, that is part of HOW the second coming happens.

Jesus made a promise in Matthew 23:39.

Zechariah 12:10, and Revelation 7 and 14's 144000 is the result of that promise.

You are misinterpreting all of those verses. It doesn't fit the context of the surrounding verses in each case and doesn't fit what scripture teaches as a whole. As for Zechariah 12:10, the fulfillment of that is shown here to be in relation to the first coming, not the second coming.

John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

Can you see here that Jesus specifically related Zechariah 12:10 to what happened at that time long ago? You need to interpret scripture with scripture here. I know you likely think that Zechariah 12:10 relates directly to Mathew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7, but it does not. There are similarities, but significant differences, also. Zechariah 12:10 has to do with people mourning His death, as many did when He died, while Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 have to do with people wailing in fear of His wrath when He comes again. And we should trust that Jesus knew what He was talking about by applying the verse to the time of His first coming instead of His second coming.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

And it does not make SENSE you say ??

Read Rev 1:6 And hath made ujs kings and priests unto God ?

Has it happened yet , and why not , because it yet into the FUTURE !!

dan p

Are you saying "hath made" should be understood in the future tense? Revelation 1:6 was clearly referring to something that had already been done since "hath made" is past tense which meant that Jesus made His people kings and priests unto God long ago already. That fits with Peter saying in 1 Peter 2:9 that believers ARE "a royal priesthood".

 

[Jamdoc]

Church simply means "called out assemblies".

During the Tribulation, the program with Israel will resume, that is why I call them Israel churches (Romans 11:25).

That basically means, if a gentile wants to be saved during the Tribulation, he must once again, go thru Israel to be saved.

He must belong to Israel's "called out assembly" to be saved, that is what the term Israel's churches meant.

It is Anathema to have another gospel.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The first question is a yes or no question.

So, you have no interest in trying to help me see what you're intending to say. Okay then.

 

[Jamdoc]

God is not done with anyone and never has been, but what you are missing is that when it comes to salvation He deals with individuals, not nations. He wants each individual to repent and put his or her faith in His Son and that's what it's all about.


You didn't specifically address anything I said. Why not? No, Paul did not teach that. If that was the case, then why did he say that he hoped to help save some of those who were blinded in his day? The way you look at this, those who were blinded were blinded permanently and that would be the case up until the future time when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. But, that cannot possibly be what Paul was teaching or else he would not have said that he hoped to help save some of his fellow Israelites who were blinded in his day.


I was talking about the woman of Revelation 12. The only children that it references of the Revelation 12 woman are Jesus (Rev 12:5) and those who follow Jesus (Rev 12:17). That is not a description of national Israel.

As for what you said here, do you not understand that some of those branches that were broken off (representing Israelites who were in unbelief and were blinded) in Paul's day ended up being saved? You act as if their blindness was a long-term thing and would not be removed until a later time, but it wasn't a corporate long-term blindness. Each individual unbelieving Israelite was blinded for a time so that the gospel of salvation could go to the Gentiles. Then the plan was for the Gentiles to provoke those blinded Israelites to jealousy so that they too would want to be saved. And a number of them who had been blinded were later saved. That's what you're missing. You're acting as if the partial blindness was a long-term thing that God would only deal with at some much later time, but that is not at all what it's about.

Read Romans 11:11-14 and see for yourself that Paul hoped to lead some of those who were blinded in his day to salvation. In your view, that was impossible because you see the blindness as being a long-term thing and that each one who has been blinded for the past almost 2,000 years had no chance of being saved and that no one who is blinded would ever be saved until a future time. That is NOT what Paul taught.


That verse is badly misunderstood by dispensationalists like yourself. Jesus was talking specifically to and about the Pharisees there and not about Israelites in the distant future. He was telling them, the Pharisees He was talking to, that they in particular would not see Him again unless they said "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord". While some of them did later put their faith in Christ, most did not and, because of that, they ended up being destroyed when their city Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Matthew 23:39 is not some promise to distant future Israelites as dispensationalist imagine. God is not going to one day make all Israelites believe after purposely withholding salvation from most of them for at least 2,000 years as dispensationalists believe. No, God has offered salvation to all of them for the past almost 2,000 years and has not withheld salvation from anyone during that time. Making it as if God will save all of them in the future after purposely withholding salvation from most of them for at least around 2,000 years contradicts the character of God who wants all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:3-6).

Again, you miss that those who were blinded, like those unbelieving Pharisees, were not blinded for the rest of their lives, but only until the gospel went to the Gentiles after which the Gentiles provoked some of them to jealousy and they became saved. And that has gone on ever since as more and more Jews have been saved over the years and that will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. To look at all of this only from a future perspective causes you to miss the reason that God blinded the unbelieving Israelites. The reason certainly wasn't for the purpose of withholding salvation from most of them for at least 2,000 years until finally one day saving all of them in the future, that's for sure. Yet, that is what you believe, isn't it. Why would God withhold salvation from them for so long only to then save all of them in the future? How would that be fair to all of those who were blinded with (supposedly) no chance of salvation the previous 2,000 or more years?


Yes, but you miss what that means, which I touched on above. What Paul said would happen up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in is that part of Israel would be blinded like they were in Paul's day with the hope that some of them would be provoked to jealousy by the salvation of the Gentiles so that they would be saved as well. That was God's plan for their salvation. That they would be led to salvation by the Gentiles after initially it being the case that the Jews brought the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles. That plan has been ongoing for almost 2,000 years now and will continue until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. The idea that all Israelites will be saved one day completely contradicts what Paul taught throughout Romans 11. He taught that salvation is by way of faith, not nationality. Those Israelites who were in unbelief were cut off. Their nationality didn't save them. But, Paul said if they did not continue in their unbelief then they could be grafted back in (Rom 11:23). He was not talking about them corporately there, he was talking about the very individuals who were cut off because of unbelief having the opportunity to be grafted back in if they repented and put their faith in Christ. And some of them did. Paul himself led some of them to salvation, as he talked about in Romans 11:11-14.

the part just before that in Romans 11

8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

We can hope that we can get Jews saved and witness to them but often times they're the most resistant to the Gospel. They have pride and will refuse to listen to a gentile on a matter of God.
God gave them a spirit of slumber. are we going to undo what God did?
Zechariah 12:10 has GOD pour out the spirit of grace and supplications. It is an act of GOD, not humans that does this.

You are misinterpreting all of those verses. It doesn't fit the context of the surrounding verses in each case and doesn't fit what scripture teaches as a whole. As for Zechariah 12:10, the fulfillment of that is shown here to be in relation to the first coming, not the second coming.

John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”

Can you see here that Jesus specifically related Zechariah 12:10 to what happened at that time long ago? You need to interpret scripture with scripture here. I know you likely think that Zechariah 12:10 relates directly to Mathew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7, but it does not. There are similarities, but significant differences, also. Zechariah 12:10 has to do with people mourning His death, as many did when He died, while Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 have to do with people wailing in fear of His wrath when He comes again. And we should trust that Jesus knew what He was talking about by applying the verse to the time of His first coming instead of His second coming.

No, not at all. The Roman soldier is not of the house of David. Nor was the ENTIRE WORLD against Israel and God making Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness (that's happening now though). They were a Roman province.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

the part just before that in Romans 11

We can hope that we can get Jews saved and witness to them but often times they're the most resistant to the Gospel.

That's true of a lot of people and not just Jews. But, the fact is that a good number of them have been saved for the past almost 2,000 years. There were 3,000 of them saved on the day of Pentecost alone and about 2,000 more of them were saved shortly after that. And there have been Jews getting saved ever since. And most of those have been saved by being provoked to jealousy by the Gentiles just as God planned and as Paul explained in Romans 11.

Do you not believe that God has wanted all Jews to be saved for the past 2,000 years? Or do you think that He has blinded most of them and withheld salvation from most of them during that time, as it seems you believe?

They have pride and will refuse to listen to a gentile on a matter of God.

Who are "they"? Not all of them. Do you think the ones who reject the gospel can't help but to do so? Do you think that's God's will for them? Each individual has to choose whether to listen and respond favorably or not. Salvation is not a corporate thing, it is an individual thing. That's what you miss.

God gave them a spirit of slumber. are we going to undo what God did?

Here is the problem with your understanding, which I already talked about but I think you didn't pay much attention to what I said. In your view it seems that you think He blinded them so that they fell beyond recovery. So, in your view, once they were blinded they never had any chance of being saved after that. But, that is NOT the case! As I've said multiple times already, Paul in Romans 11:11-14 (have you read it?) said that they stumbled but not beyond recovery and he hoped to help lead some of those who were blinded to salvation. And I'm sure he did. Do you think he didn't? In your view it seems that you believe that none of those who were blinded were later saved, but that is wrong. Some of them were. That has to be taken into account when interpreting Romans 11 instead of looking at it all only through a futuristic lens.

Zechariah 12:10 has GOD pour out the spirit of grace and supplications. It is an act of GOD, not humans that does this.

Have you never read Acts 2? You are postponing things that already started happening long ago for some reason.

No, not at all. The Roman soldier is not of the house of David.

What does this mean? The Roman soldier wasn't the only one looking upon Him, obviously. Jesus explicitly related Zechariah 12:10 to His first coming, as can be seen in John 19:34-37. You can't just ignore that. But, it appears that you are.

 

[Jamdoc]

That's true of a lot of people and not just Jews. But, the fact is that a good number of them have been saved for the past almost 2,000 years. There were 3,000 of them saved on the day of Pentecost alone and about 2,000 more of them were saved shortly after that. And there have been Jews getting saved ever since. And most of those have been saved by being provoked to jealousy by the Gentiles just as God planned and as Paul explained in Romans 11.

Do you not believe that God has wanted all Jews to be saved for the past 2,000 years? Or do you think that He has blinded most of them and withheld salvation from most of them during that time, as it seems you believe?


Who are "they"? Not all of them. Do you think the ones who reject the gospel can't help but to do so? Do you think that's God's will for them? Each individual has to choose whether to listen and respond favorably or not. Salvation is not a corporate thing, it is an individual thing. That's what you miss.


Here is the problem with your understanding, which I already talked about but I think you didn't pay much attention to what I said. In your view it seems that you think He blinded them so that they fell beyond recovery. So, in your view, once they were blinded they never had any chance of being saved after that. But, that is NOT the case! As I've said multiple times already, Paul in Romans 11:11-14 (have you read it?) said that they stumbled but not beyond recovery and he hoped to help lead some of those who were blinded to salvation. And I'm sure he did. Do you think he didn't? In your view it seems that you believe that none of those who were blinded were later saved, but that is wrong. Some of them were. That has to be taken into account when interpreting Romans 11 instead of looking at it all only through a futuristic lens.


Have you never read Acts 2? You are postponing things that already started happening long ago for some reason.

It's not about Acts 2. Read in context. The entire world turns against Israel and Jerusalem, it's battle. That was not the context of Acts 2 whatsoever. Nothing happened in Megiddon in Acts 2. Something will happen there (Armageddon) in the future.

What does this mean? The Roman soldier wasn't the only one looking upon Him, obviously. Jesus explicitly related Zechariah 12:10 to His first coming, as can be seen in John 19:34-37. You can't just ignore that. But, it appears that you are.

Yeah, and there was "Day of the Lord" signs during the crucifixion as well. But John still wrote about Day of the Lord signs yet to come in Revelation 6:12-17, decades later.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's not about Acts 2. Read in context. The entire world turns against Israel and Jerusalem, it's battle. That was not the context of Acts 2 whatsoever. Nothing happened in Megiddon in Acts 2. Something will happen there (Armageddon) in the future.

You're not specifically addressing anything I'm saying and I have to wonder why that is. In your view could an Israelite who was blinded in Paul's day or any time since be saved? Yes or no? It seems to be your view that being blinded results in damnation and that would be the case for all blinded Israelites up until the future time when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. It seems that in your view only at that point can someone who was blinded be saved. Is that correct? If so, then that is what I'm arguing against because it doesn't fit the context of Romans 11 which has some Israelites who were blinded later being saved in Paul's day and ever since. I wish you would actually address my points.

Yeah, and there was "Day of the Lord" signs during the crucifixion as well. But John still wrote about Day of the Lord signs yet to come in Revelation 6:12-17, decades later.

The day of the Lord is always referred to in the future sense, so I'm not getting your point here at all. The fact of the matter is that Jesus applied Zechariah 12:10 to something that happened in relation to His first coming. I believe you are trying to get around that. Is that what you do with a verse like Zechariah 13:7, too?

 

[Guojing]

So, you have no interest in trying to help me see what you're intending to say. Okay then.

You just need to answer yes or no, to that question, and you will understand.

If you don't wish to answer, just say so.

 

[Jamdoc]

You're not specifically addressing anything I'm saying and I have to wonder why that is. In your view could an Israelite who was blinded in Paul's day or any time since be saved? Yes or no? It seems to be your view that being blinded results in damnation and that would be the case for all blinded Israelites up until the future time when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. It seems that in your view only at that point can someone who was blinded be saved. Is that correct? If so, then that is what I'm arguing against because it doesn't fit the context of Romans 11 which has some Israelites who were blinded later being saved in Paul's day and ever since. I wish you would actually address my points.

Paul said God put a spirit of slumber on them, Zechariah 12 has Israel at war with the world and devouring the peoples roundabout like a torch in the sheaves and God pouring out the spirit of grace on them.
You believe this was past, I don't agree, and so because I believe it is yet future, I believe that Israel has partial blindness to this day, and an act of God will change that.

The day of the Lord is always referred to in the future sense, so I'm not getting your point here at all. The fact of the matter is that Jesus applied Zechariah 12:10 to something that happened in relation to His first coming. I believe you are trying to get around that. Is that what you do with a verse like Zechariah 13:7, too?

Prophecy often has double fulfillment, a near fulfillment and a further fulfillment that is more perfect. Revelation follows the pattern of Exodus in many ways, and the second coming also can be considered a greater fulfillment of Exodus, with Jesus as the greater fulfillment of Moses.

When Jesus was crucified there was darkness over the world, even a Chinese emperor (Gwangwu) recorded it in his annals, in the book of the latter Han, and even interpreted the omen as all the crimes of the world being put on one man, and forgiveness being declared from heaven, and also remarked that the man from heaven had died, and would not do official business for days afterward. Peter declared these signs in Acts 2, quoting Joel 2 as well. So at the crucifixion, the signs of the Day of the Lord happened, the Earthquake as well.

However there is a more perfect fulfillment of these signs yet to come, and they are with His second coming rather than His first. Jesus in Matthew 24 gave these signs in regards to His second coming, but they were visible during the crucifixion as well.

So, the soldier piercing the side of Jesus and John quoting Zechariah 12 relating to it, is the near fulfillment, but there is a yet future perfect fulfillment at the second coming.

 

[David Lamb]

I believe that the letters were both applicable to 1st century churches and will also be applicable to 7 church "types" during the end times. Jesus threatens the Church at Thyatira with great tribulation, well there's only going to be one great tribulation and it didn't happen in the late 1st century/early 2nd century shortly after Revelation was written in the 90's AD, so they are perhaps MORE relevant to end time churches. But they were still dual purpose for both then and in the (perhaps near) future.

One interpretation I've always thought was just plain dumb was the "7 church ages" interpretation.
because all of these church types have existed throughout all of history.

Yes, I agree that although addressed originally to the seven Asian churches, the letters are applicable to churches of all ages, rather like the OT prophecies, many of which had immediate application to Israel, but also have their fulfillment in New Testament times.

 

[David Lamb]

And it does not make SENSE you say ??

Read Rev 1:6 And hath made ujs kings and priests unto God ?

Has it happened yet , and why not , because it yet into the FUTURE !!

dan p

Yes, it has happened, as Peter wrote to Christians:

“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;” (1Pe 2:9 NKJV)

 

[David Lamb]

When Peter proclaimed the Joel prophecy at Acts 2, he already announced its the last days, so Daniel's 70th week was to begin at anytime.

Peter repeated that in 1 Peter 1:3-9.



Church simply means "called out assemblies".

During the Tribulation, the program with Israel will resume, that is why I call them Israel churches (Romans 11:25).

That basically means, if a gentile wants to be saved during the Tribulation, he must once again, go thru Israel to be saved.

He must belong to Israel's "called out assembly" to be saved, that is what the term Israel's churches meant.

I don't agree with the idea that now people come to the Father through the One Who is "the way, the truth and the life," but in the tribulation, sinners will have to come through Israel. And yes, I know that church means "called out assembly" , but the Asian church were not Israel.

 

[Guojing]

I don't agree with the idea that now people come to the Father through the One Who is "the way, the truth and the life," but in the tribulation, sinners will have to come through Israel.

In the Old Testament, after the nation of Israel was formed in Exodus, if you are a gentile that wants to be saved then, what must you do?

You don't think you needed to go thru the nation of Israel? Could you just approach God the Father directly?

 

[David Lamb]

In the Old Testament, after the nation of Israel was formed in Exodus, if you are a gentile that wants to be saved then, what must you do?

You don't think you needed to go thru the nation of Israel? Could you just approach God the Father directly?

Well, I didn't think we were talking about proselytes in the Old Testament, but about how people are saved now and during the Tribulation. Even in the Old Testament, non-Jews didn't have to approach God through Israel, with Israel as their mediator. They had to believe in Israel's God. People like Ruth did this. I'm sure her mother-in-law Naomi would have told her much about God, but we don't read of Ruth approaching God through Naomi.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Paul said God put a spirit of slumber on them, Zechariah 12 has Israel at war with the world and devouring the peoples roundabout like a torch in the sheaves and God pouring out the spirit of grace on them.
You believe this was past, I don't agree, and so because I believe it is yet future, I believe that Israel has partial blindness to this day, and an act of God will change that.

I have scripture on my side here. Zechariah 12:10 is quoted by Jesus Himself in a first coming context. We need to allow scripture to interpret scripture, whenever possible. But, instead of accepting the timing of the fulfillment of that verse as Jesus saw it, you still insist that it has a future fulfillment. I truly don't understand that. Jesus indicated that the prophecy was fulfilled in the time of His first coming, so I accept that.

Do you think Zechariah 13:7 has a future fulfillment, too, even though Jesus described its fulfillment in a first coming context? We need to accept the timing of the fulfillment of prophecies like these according to what scripture tells us and not according to what doctrinal biases tell us.

Prophecy often has double fulfillment, a near fulfillment and a further fulfillment that is more perfect. Revelation follows the pattern of Exodus in many ways, and the second coming also can be considered a greater fulfillment of Exodus, with Jesus as the greater fulfillment of Moses.

I don't buy this at all. There are no double fulfillments of prophecy. You can make scripture say whatever you want it to say when you resort to things like this. I believe when people are shown a past fulfillment of a prophecy and know that they can't deny it then they resort to things like double fulfillment to try to get around it. I just cannot believe what people will resort to in order to keep their doctrines afloat.

When Jesus was crucified there was darkness over the world, even a Chinese emperor (Gwangwu) recorded it in his annals, in the book of the latter Han, and even interpreted the omen as all the crimes of the world being put on one man, and forgiveness being declared from heaven, and also remarked that the man from heaven had died, and would not do official business for days afterward. Peter declared these signs in Acts 2, quoting Joel 2 as well. So at the crucifixion, the signs of the Day of the Lord happened, the Earthquake as well.

No, the day of the Lord is the day Jesus returns in the future. Just read 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. The day of the Lord is a future event only. What sense would it make for signs to occur at least around 2,000 years before the event even occurs? That makes no sense. The crucifixion was not a sign of His second coming and neither was what happened on the day of Pentecost.

However there is a more perfect fulfillment of these signs yet to come, and they are with His second coming rather than His first. Jesus in Matthew 24 gave these signs in regards to His second coming, but they were visible during the crucifixion as well.

What happened during His crucifixion were not signs of His second coming. Come on. I can't take this seriously.

So, the soldier piercing the side of Jesus and John quoting Zechariah 12 relating to it, is the near fulfillment, but there is a yet future perfect fulfillment at the second coming.

I completely disagree. This type of thinking can lead to making scripture say anything you want it to say. I reject it completely.

Here is another thing I thought of regarding this discussion. You believe in a future mass conversion of Israelites just before Christ's second coming, right? How can that be when other scripture says there will be a mass falling away from the faith just before He comes (2 Thess 2:3)? And how can that be when Jesus asked if He would find faith on the earth when He comes (Luke 18:8)? That view does not line up with the rest of scripture.

Your view also does not take into account that there are two different Israels, as Paul explained in Romans 9:6-8. Being part of one of the Israels is dependent on being a physical descendant of Abraham and the nation of Israel. Being part of the other Israel is not dependent at all on being a physical descendant of national Israel or Abraham, but rather depends on spiritually being a child of God and of the promise which is true of those who are regarded as Abraham's spiritual seed. So, it is not all national Israel that will be saved it is all spiritual Israel that is saved and will be saved up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

And the way that all Israel is saved is by way of the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ long ago. There is no other covenant by which sins are taken away. The new covenant is the covenant that Paul references in Romans 11:26-27. He is not making a new prophecy that is only about the future there, but rather is referencing an Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 59:20-21) that was already in the process of being fulfilled in Paul's day and would continue to be fulfilled until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You just need to answer yes or no, to that question, and you will understand.

If you don't wish to answer, just say so.

I can't answer a question that I don't even understand. I'm trying to get you to clarify what you were asking, but I guess you're just not getting that for whatever reason. Here is what you said:

Did Paul taught the Israel of God, Galatians 5:2?

If your answer is yes, then you are also saying that Acts 21:21 accusation about Paul is true.

I don't even understand your question. Here is the verse you're asking about. I'll quote it from the KJV since you seem to be one of those KJV-only people.

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

So, you're asking if Paul taught the Israel of God in this verse? He doesn't mention the Israel of God in this verse, so I don't think we can say one way or another whether he was teaching or not teaching about the Israel of God in this verse. Not explicitly, anyway. So, I don't know why you're asking that question in relation to this verse. Can you explain that?

And I don't know what you meant in relation to your comment about Acts 21:21, either. So, please clarify what it is that you were intending to ask with your question and what you were intending to say with your followup comment.

 

[Jamdoc]

I have scripture on my side here. Zechariah 12:10 is quoted by Jesus Himself in a first coming context. We need to allow scripture to interpret scripture, whenever possible. But, instead of accepting the timing of the fulfillment of that verse as Jesus saw it, you still insist that it has a future fulfillment. I truly don't understand that. Jesus indicated that the prophecy was fulfilled in the time of His first coming, so I accept that.

Uh, no it wasn't quoted by Jesus Himself in John. Jesus was dead, that was the point of the spear there was to make sure he was dead so they didn't break his legs.

and again, it doesn't perfectly fit the context of Zechariah 12. Israel was not consuming the people round about them with the entire world at war with them at the crucifixion.

It is a second coming fulfillment, not first.

Do you think Zechariah 13:7 has a future fulfillment, too, even though Jesus described its fulfillment in a first coming context? We need to accept the timing of the fulfillment of prophecies like these according to what scripture tells us and not according to what doctrinal biases tell us.

yeah, I believe that 2/3 of the people in Israel will perish and 1/3 will be refined in the Great Tribulation, and there will be a scattering, this time because Jesus told them to flee Judea.

in before you claim AD 70..

I don't buy this at all. There are no double fulfillments of prophecy. You can make scripture say whatever you want it to say when you resort to things like this. I believe when people are shown a past fulfillment of a prophecy and know that they can't deny it then they resort to things like double fulfillment to try to get around it. I just cannot believe what people will resort to in order to keep their doctrines afloat.

Then you're accepting fulfillments loaded in historical errors or things that don't exactly match the scripture.

Judea was a Roman province, the entire world was not fighting a battle against Israel, and you claim that Zechariah 12 was about the crucifixion.
you just hand wave away the inaccuracies? Does God make oopsies in His prophetic details?

What kind of blinders are you wearing to not see that the entire world is currently aligning against Israel even though they were attacked first? All the focus is on the Palestinian plight, and there are literal pogroms going on in Amsterdam.

Like you can throw those partial preterist/historicist blinders on no matter how you want but it doesn't change that the world is aligning itself to future fulfillment of prophecy. The players mentioned in the bible are getting uncanny close to fulfilling certain things, like Turkey talking about leading an alliance against Israel and invading them with Iran being one of the principal enemies of Israel right now is really on the nose with Ezekiel 38. It's not going to happen yet but it's going in that direction and eventually Turkey WILL lead an invasion.

No, the day of the Lord is the day Jesus returns in the future. Just read 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. The day of the Lord is a future event only. What sense would it make for signs to occur at least around 2,000 years before the event even occurs? That makes no sense. The crucifixion was not a sign of His second coming and neither was what happened on the day of Pentecost.

Uh, Peter quoted Joel 2 in Acts 2 Doesn't that count as fulfillment to you?

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
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:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Peter was claiming that Joel 2:32 was fulfilled at the Crucifixion, and that is a Day of the Lord prophecy.
Peter was referring to this

Matthew 27

45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Signs that match the Day of the Lord, the darkening of the sun and moon, the Earthquake and resurrection of the elect.

and yet Paul, Peter, John, and Jude all wrote about the Day of the Lord as a yet future event, although a microcosm of it happened at the crucifixion up to Pentecost, which Peter was quoting this fulfillment.

What happened during His crucifixion were not signs of His second coming. Come on. I can't take this seriously.

I am serious, Peter quoted Joel 2 referring to it. Peter quoted that the Crucifixion and Pentecost were the fulfillment of that scripture, and yet later taught that the Day of the Lord was still coming in the future. Peter taught double fulfillment.

I completely disagree. This type of thinking can lead to making scripture say anything you want it to say. I reject it completely.

Bold words from one who allegorizes scripture.

Here is another thing I thought of regarding this discussion. You believe in a future mass conversion of Israelites just before Christ's second coming, right? How can that be when other scripture says there will be a mass falling away from the faith just before He comes (2 Thess 2:3)? And how can that be when Jesus asked if He would find faith on the earth when He comes (Luke 18:8)? That view does not line up with the rest of scripture.

Your view also does not take into account that there are two different Israels, as Paul explained in Romans 9:6-8. Being part of one of the Israels is dependent on being a physical descendant of Abraham and the nation of Israel. Being part of the other Israel is not dependent at all on being a physical descendant of national Israel or Abraham, but rather depends on spiritually being a child of God and of the promise which is true of those who are regarded as Abraham's spiritual seed. So, it is not all national Israel that will be saved it is all spiritual Israel that is saved and will be saved up until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

And the way that all Israel is saved is by way of the new covenant that was established by the blood of Christ long ago. There is no other covenant by which sins are taken away. The new covenant is the covenant that Paul references in Romans 11:26-27. He is not making a new prophecy that is only about the future there, but rather is referencing an Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 59:20-21) that was already in the process of being fulfilled in Paul's day and would continue to be fulfilled until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

No there is no other covenant, they get saved by accepting the same New Covenant we do. But right now, largely they reject it and are blinded to it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Uh, no it wasn't quoted by Jesus Himself in John. Jesus was dead, that was the point of the spear there was to make sure he was dead so they didn't break his legs.

Right. I meant it was quoted about Jesus in relation to His death, so the context was His first coming and not the second coming. As I had already said before as well.

and again, it doesn't perfectly fit the context of Zechariah 12. Israel was not consuming the people round about them with the entire world at war with them at the crucifixion.

Again, we need to accept that the fulfillment of the verse was specifically quoted in relation to His first coming, not the second. You're trying to get around that, but you can't. That has to be your starting point instead of making assumptions about the prophecy based on your futurist perspective.

It is a second coming fulfillment, not first.

No, it isn't. It can't be. Scripture itself shows otherwise.

yeah, I believe that 2/3 of the people in Israel will perish and 1/3 will be refined in the Great Tribulation, and there will be a scattering, this time because Jesus told them to flee Judea.

in before you claim AD 70..

LOL. They fled Judea just as Jesus warned in AD 70 and avoided being killed, so don't tell me to just disregard that.

Then you're accepting fulfillments loaded in historical errors or things that don't exactly match the scripture.

LOL. Your exact match of scripture approach is the result of your insisting that everything has to be taken completely literally despite the fact that there is a lot of symbolism in prophecy. I don't understand that approach at all.

Judea was a Roman province, the entire world was not fighting a battle against Israel, and you claim that Zechariah 12 was about the crucifixion.

I claim that because scripture claims that. You try to get around that with your double fulfillment nonsense.

you just hand wave away the inaccuracies? Does God make oopsies in His prophetic details?

Please don't ask me ridiculous questions like that as if I would possibly answer yes to that ludicrous question. What you miss is that it's not all meant to be taken literally the way you do. So, what happens when scripture itself says a prophecy was fulfilled? If it wasn't fulfilled the way you think it should have been, then you resort to double fulfillment and anything you can do to give it a future fulfillment. I don't buy that at all. It's a ridiculous approach to interpreting scripture and not one I can take seriously.

What kind of blinders are you wearing to not see that the entire world is currently aligning against Israel even though they were attacked first? All the focus is on the Palestinian plight, and there are literal pogroms going on in Amsterdam.

There is no prophecy in scripture about that situation. You ignore history in order to keep your hyperfuturist doctrine afloat.

Like you can throw those partial preterist/historicist blinders on no matter how you want but it doesn't change that the world is aligning itself to future fulfillment of prophecy.

You have the blinders on. You ignore the explanation of the fulfillments of prophecy in scripture itself and instead rely on current events to dictate your doctrine. I'd rather rely on scripture.

The players mentioned in the bible are getting uncanny close to fulfilling certain things, like Turkey talking about leading an alliance against Israel and invading them with Iran being one of the principal enemies of Israel right now is really on the nose with Ezekiel 38. It's not going to happen yet but it's going in that direction and eventually Turkey WILL lead an invasion.

That has nothing to do with the fulfillment of prophecy. You will always see what you want to see because of your doctrinal bias.

Uh, Peter quoted Joel 2 in Acts 2 Doesn't that count as fulfillment to you?

It was the beginning of the fulfillment, but that doesn't mean the day of the Lord itself has started yet. The day of the Lord is the day that Christ returns and it will result in "sudden destruction" from which unbelievers "shall not escape" (1 Thess 5:2-3).

Peter was claiming that Joel 2:32 was fulfilled at the Crucifixion, and that is a Day of the Lord prophecy.
Peter was referring to this

Matthew 27


Signs that match the Day of the Lord, the darkening of the sun and moon, the Earthquake and resurrection of the elect.

and yet Paul, Peter, John, and Jude all wrote about the Day of the Lord as a yet future event, although a microcosm of it happened at the crucifixion up to Pentecost, which Peter was quoting this fulfillment.

The day of the Lord is only a future event. I don't accept your double fulfillment approach at all.

I am serious, Peter quoted Joel 2 referring to it. Peter quoted that the Crucifixion and Pentecost were the fulfillment of that scripture, and yet later taught that the Day of the Lord was still coming in the future. Peter taught double fulfillment.

No, he did not. There are aspects of the prophecy that began to be fulfilled back then and going forward from then, but the day of the Lord itself is a future event.

Bold words from one who allegorizes scripture.

We all take some scripture literally, some figuratively and so on, so this comment is utterly ludicrous and meaningless. My doctrine is primarily based on literal scripture. That's what premils like you don't get. Scripture says that the earth will be burned up when Jesus returns, which supports amil (2 Peter 3:10-12). I take that literally. Jesus said that all of the dead will be resurrected in the same hour. So, one future resurrection event, not two as you believe (John 5:28-29). Scripture says that Jesus reigns now (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-23, Col 1:12-13). I take that literally and interpret Revelation 20 accordingly. And on and on it goes. So, the idea that my doctrine is based on allegorizing scripture is ridiculous. I interpret literal text literally and allegorical text allegorically. We all agree that not everything is literal, so please stop making these types of useless comments.

No there is no other covenant, they get saved by accepting the same New Covenant we do. But right now, largely they reject it and are blinded to it.

Why in the world would you see Romans 11:26-27 as having only a future fulfillment when you acknowledge that they get saved NOW by the covenant Paul referenced there, which you agree is "the same New Covenant we do"? This is truly unbelievable to me. How can you not see that he was talking about how they would be saved throughout the New Testament era and not just in the future? And he was not talking about national Israel all being saved since that is not even reasonable. He was referring to the Israel of which not all of national Israel is part, as he alluded to previously in Romans 9:6-8. Romans 9-11 is all one overarching narrative, which many miss.