What is distinct from Judaism?

[Douggg]

Doug, can you elaborate?

Can you see how the desire to have Israel reign for 1000 years is merely keeping Judaism intact instead of tranfering its promises to be about Christ like the NT does?

Inter, that is strawman thinking. No futurist is replacing Jesus with Israel.

The Jews are looking for the messiah, someone to be their King of Israel, Son of David. While Christians are looking for Jesus, his return, or his coming for the rapture, depending on one's view of the rapture timing.

So those are completely different eschatological views - although they are both futurist.

Judaism believes that when the "real" messiah shows up, Christianity in light of the overwhelming truth of it all, will simply fade away - as non-Jews become monotheist Noahides. Which in Christian prophecy will be the great falling away, in 2thessalonians2.

Judaism believes their messiah will be embraced by the world as being of such respect that they will look to his leadership in bringing, not only Israel into the messianic age of peace and harmony, but the nations as well.

If a person considers that the little horn, as the leader of Europe, will have substantial influence in the world already, that when the Jews come to think that he is their messiah, due to the circumstances at the time following Gog/Magog - it would be easy to see how their expectation of the messiah having global impact would realized in him.

Unfortunately, and nearly 100% universal in Christian eschatology, the term Antichrist is generalized to label the little horn, the beast, and the man of sin in discussion, thinking, and writing - using the term "Antichrist".

Which really muddies the waters. I personally am making a concentrated effort to clean up my own generalizations in using the term Antichrist. I am hoping you do the same.

In actuality, the person does not become the Antichrist until he is anointed the King of Israel, son of David (illicit). And he stops being the Antichrist when he reveals himself as the man of sin, and the Jews reject him as their king.

Because of his limited stint as the Antichrist, we don't see in scriptures (like in 2thessalonians2, or in Revelation) the person referred to as the Antichrist.

So, we have to tune our thinking as the person being the King of the Roman Empire. That will be his start. And that will be his end. In between, he will be the Antichrist, king of Israel, illicit. So if you encounter a futurist using the term Antichrist to directly label the beast or little horn (such as "little horn Antichrist" ) - please correct them, and explain why.

Little horn - 7th king (Julio-Claudian) Roman Empire - his beginning
Beast - 8th king (Julio-Claudian) Roman Empire - his end

Antichrist -King of Israel (illicit) in between.

So it is not right to say the little horn is the Antichrist. Nor that the beast is the Antichrist. Nor that the revealed man of sin is the Antichrist. When at those times, he is not in the role of being the King of Israel, instead of Jesus.

Judaism has absolutely no consideration of the little horn, nor the beast, nor of the Antichrist in their eschatology. Which is completely different than Christianity.

Judaism does view Gog/Magog as forthcoming and that their messiah and messianic age will follow. Their messiah, in their view, will a great political leader, and military leader who will fight the battles of God in defending Israel.

 

[Interplanner]

doug,
your last paragrpah means you think they share things, which is evidence that you don't think they are distinct.

re the idea of Israel reigning: it was just expounded by Tranquil as the real meaning of the Mill. Christ is there but just as Judaized as your last paragraph above, and the "thrones" and some of the people here about "David" not realizing that the David is Christ and the promises were transferred to him.

The AC / man of sin stuff is distinct alright, but I don't remove them from the 1st century as you do because of the timestamps on them.

 

[Douggg]

doug,
your last paragrpah means you think they share things, which is evidence that you don't think they are distinct.

Well, the muslims believe that there is an Antichrist (the dajeel) coming, but wouldn't you say that their end times view is distinct from the Christian view?

re the idea of Israel reigning: it was just expounded by Tranquil as the real meaning of the Mill. Christ is there but just as Judaized as your last paragraph above, and the "thrones" and some of the people here about "David" not realizing that the David is Christ and the promises were transferred to him.

Well, I think you know by and large, futurists don't replace Jesus with Israel as being the one who rules the world during the millenium. I don't know enough about your exchange with Tranquil, so I will sit on the sidelines in that discussion.

The AC / man of sin stuff is distinct alright, but I don't remove them from the 1st century as you do because of the timestamps on them.

John of G never achieved being the Antichrist, the King over Israel. The last King of Israel was Solomon. Now that Israel has become a united nation again,the conditions are possible for someone to fill that role as King of Israel (illicit).

 

[Rev20]

Well, the muslims believe that there is an Antichrist (the dajeel) coming, but wouldn't you say that their end times view is distinct from the Christian view?

Well, I think you know by and large, futurists don't replace Jesus with Israel as being the one who rules the world during the millenium. I don't know enough about your exchange with Tranquil, so I will sit on the sidelines in that discussion.

John of G never achieved being the Antichrist, the King over Israel. The last King of Israel was Solomon. Now that Israel has become a united nation again,the conditions are possible for someone to fill that role as King of Israel (illicit).

Where does it say the "antichrist" will be king over Israel?


.

 

[Interplanner]

I think what Doug is saying is that the AC takes the things that Christ refused to be (cp. Jn 6 about the king) and champions them. That makes sense. The question I have is when this would take place.

1, the Mill is a very Judaized belief. It 'resolves' 2P2P for those people who believe 2P2P. That's when 'literal' things are fulfilled. So maybe its a bit strong to say that Israel is replacing Christ, but there really is so much Judaica in it, fed by 2P2P's unfinished business, that it is true. The thrones and the walls and the David.

2, the events of the 1st century fulfilled what was said in Mt24A and 1 Th 2. I think Doug is looking for a 'perfect' fulfillment of those things, but as we know from many things in the ministry and nativity of Christ, it wasn't quite what we thought. It's rough and crumbly, but it is the fulfillment. I can't take Doug's word about those passages over their own timestamps (the temple and the declarations of ultimate wrath, sometimes past-tense!).

 

[Danoh]

Some on here; for all their OWN reasoning INTO as to "what the Lord meant by 'this generation,'" actually make themselves a generation in the following, exact same tradition - "in THEM is fulfilled" the Lord's "But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced, we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented... Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word," Matt. 11: 16, 17; John 8:43.

Fact is, no matter how often, nor how loud they pipe "show us - dance our tune" they have long since been disabled from seeing anything but their own subjectitve reasoning within themselves.

In them, you see why the Lord had so often "failed" to get through when He, the Word Himself appealed through His Dispensational Word that "season" those two thousand years ago...

 

[Douggg]

Where does it say the "antichrist" will be king over Israel?


.

Hi Rev 20, your question pinpoints, imo, why most Christians can't understand the end times prophecies in a start to finish scenario. Nothing personal . You are poising a descent question.

The problem is this. We as Christians have been conditioned to think of Christ as meaning Savior
because Jesus (Christ) is the Savior from our sins. But that is not what christ actually means. It is taken from christos, a greek version of messiah, why is a transliteration of the original hebrew word for "anointed". Cyrus was an anointed - someone chosen by God for a particular purpose.

In olden times, the priests and the kings of Israel were all anointeds - but not Saviors, like Jesus is our Savior.

In the times of the disciples, they were looking for a special anointed - a special king that God promised who would be descended from David. That special king was to be an anointed - like Saul was the Lord's anointed - but special and great, to redeem the nation, and to teach them how to live righteously, and to restore Israel as an independent nation, and to bring all of the scattered back to the land of Israel, and to bring peace and harmony to the world. That special king was referred to as "the messiah", or "the christ" if a person spoke greek.

But messiah and christ, had no contextual meaning as being a Savior from our Sins, removing them as though they never happened.

Jesus was that messiah - the christ - the promised great King of Israel, Son of David. But he was rejected by the Jews as being their king. The Antichrist is someone other than Jesus that the Jews will embrace to be that king of Israel - instead of Jesus. For a short time.

The person has to be opposed to Jesus being the rightful king of Israel, in order for he himself to assume that role. And he is "Anti", in that he is in lieu of Jesus.

There is not a single sentence in the bible that says the Antichrist will be the King of Israel. That he will be the King of Israel is absolutely built into the term "the messiah", "the christ", though.

But as I say, in Christianity, we have a built in paradigm to think christ (the word itself) as being Savior from our sins, because we have been conditioned that way.


When the person gets into all the ruthless acts in Revelation, he is not doing so as the King of Israel. That stint will be over when he gets to those things.

Following the Jews rejecting him as their king(and turning to Jesus the rightful king), the person will be the man of sin, the beast, that wicked, the lawless one, and will be associated with being the king of the Roman Empire - which we could additionally think of his dominion for that last 42 months as being the king of Babylon, as well, because he will rule the entire world - although his power base will be the EU.

That way, a person can understand the end times scenario. Roman Empire association his start and finish, and a stint as the king of Israel association in between.

When we examine Revelation, we need to think in terms of Roman Empire, the fourth empire. Being the king of Israel, Antichrist, is not in Revelation, because Revelation 13 comes after him being the king of Israel - for a while.

So what I am saying is that we (meaning everyone, everywhere) are throwing that word the Antichrist around haphazardly. We need to be more particular, so that we can put together that start to finish end times scenario.

 

[ebedmelech]

Doug, brother, you're pretty much lost in your own "eschatological maze"! So much to the point that when your theories run into a wall, you figure a way around the wall, instead of examining the word of God to see if your conclusions line up.

Most prominent in this is your inability to understand the Davidic Covenant...and really, I think you know you've missed the boat...but your religious pride won't allow you to acknowledge as much. That is the beginning of many of your stumbling blocks.

 

[Douggg]

Doug, brother, you're pretty much lost in your own "eschatological maze"! So much to the point that when your theories run into a wall, you figure a way around the wall, instead of examining the word of God to see if your conclusions line up.

Most prominent in this is your inability to understand the Davidic Covenant...and really, I think you know you've missed the boat...but your religious pride won't allow you to acknowledge as much. That is the beginning of many of your stumbling blocks.

Do the Jews understand the Davidic covenant?

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
sorry I have no idea what the above post means other than the protection of your own beliefs which you won't lay open to questions.

There is nothing "subjective" about saying that 'this generation' as it appears in most instances in the Gospels is indeed the one listening and hearing and about to go through it. The most painfully graphic ex. of this would be Lk 23:28, where--you are right--the words 'this generation' do not appear. What appears is the parameters of a generation: those nursing now and adults in a few years from now. His expression 'this generation' was usually about them. I don't know right off where it was ever used in a detached sense for a distant future.

You might allow for this at Mt 24:34, but the force of the whole chapter is against it. It is much more likely that he is looping back to before the timestamp (v29) for emphasis, and it compares closely with how 16:28 expresses things.

 

[Interplanner]

Doug,
yes the Jews have an understanding of it. it is veiled. It is 'kata sarka' while what Paul had after knowing Christ was 'kata Christos.' The former is 'ordinary.' It is what the ordinary person would see when reading the OT (2 Cor 3-5). Very understandable. But Paul's work, effort, career, ministry, mission is to clear up this misunderstanding.

It is Christ who is the fulfillment of David (Rom 1), and to whom the things promised to David have been transfered, Acts 13. This is not easily swallowed by the Jews because it is seen "in Christ." They think there is one program, people. "The Jewish Trinity is not the same as the Christian one; it is God, the Torah, and the People" --R. Prager. D'ists think/thought it would be nice to smooth this over with 2P2P. But this is flawed. The Christian view, at the end of the day, after the explanation of the Law as the tutorial child-trainer (Gal 3-4), is that there is one Gospel, Lord, faith, law of gold, body, promise, etc.

This is why there is no 'need' to go back to 'unfinished business' in Judaism and set it all up again in a millenium, or, why there is no blinder when looking at the OT prophecy that tries to sort it neatly into Christian vs restored Judaism.

 

[Danoh]

Dougg, in Inter, Rev, Ebid, Bab, and one or two others, you are basically dealing with the marketplace children of my above post #26. You are asked to dance their tune [address their questions, prove this, that, the other] and when you do, out comes their piping against you.

Note their common pattern: they assert they do not know where others not of their delusion are coming, ask for elaboration, are given, assert they have failed to see it, but then rebut it, often taken the example given for the principle it was meant to convey.

That is what you are up against - their own "makes sense to me from within the error of my own reason, together with that which the pied pipers of all those books I venerate over Scripture, no matter what I assert" foolishnesses.

Realize Dougg theirs was the exact same mess that so went against the Lord they would.now assert they alone are such experts on.

THE LAND WAS PROMISED BY GOD!!! THE NEW JERUSALEM COMES DOWN TO IT!!!

THAT IS NOT HEAVEN BUT A CITY IN HEAVEN. What - we all live in the same city here? What absolute blindness on the part of these pied pipers.

Verses of of none effect with them - OF NONE EFFECT...

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
is there someone you can ask for help about grammar. You've got 2.5 sentences in the line that starts "Realize Dougg..." and I have no idea what you are saying.

Why don't you just comment on Gal 4:26 instead of complicating things by talking about what others say about Gal 4:26?

You do this all the time, and it is near worthless. Not wrong. Worthless in discussion.

 

[Douggg]

Doug,
yes the Jews have an understanding of it. it is veiled. It is 'kata sarka' while what Paul had after knowing Christ was 'kata Christos.' The former is 'ordinary.' It is what the ordinary person would see when reading the OT (2 Cor 3-5). Very understandable. But Paul's work, effort, career, ministry, mission is to clear up this misunderstanding.

It is Christ who is the fulfillment of David (Rom 1), and to whom the things promised to David have been transfered, Acts 13. This is not easily swallowed by the Jews because it is seen "in Christ." They think there is one program, people. "The Jewish Trinity is not the same as the Christian one; it is God, the Torah, and the People" --R. Prager. D'ists think/thought it would be nice to smooth this over with 2P2P. But this is flawed. The Christian view, at the end of the day, after the explanation of the Law as the tutorial child-trainer (Gal 3-4), is that there is one Gospel, Lord, faith, law of gold, body, promise, etc.

This is why there is no 'need' to go back to 'unfinished business' in Judaism and set it all up again in a millenium, or, why there is no blinder when looking at the OT prophecy that tries to sort it neatly into Christian vs restored Judaism.

If you are trusting God for your salvation, then you should also be trusting God that He can deliver on His promises to Israel in both the old and new testament that they will be saved and become Christians.

They will embrace Jesus as their King. and Savior. And He will return and save them in Zechariah 14.

 

[Douggg]

I think what Doug is saying is that the AC takes the things that Christ refused to be (cp. Jn 6 about the king) and champions them.

No, I am saying that the Antichrist will be the illicit King of Israel, embraced, then rejected by the Jews who will receive Jesus as their King of Israel and Savior.

John 6 is that some there in Galilee, as the crowd was fed, wanted to make him a king of Galilee. That is not the same as the King of Israel, son of David. Of course Jesus did not accept being a king over one of the regions (Galilee, Samaria, Judea), because that was not the king he was sent to be over just one of the regions.

 

[Interplanner]

Did the Galilee location matter when the claim they understood him to have have fulfilled was 'this is the Prophet who was to come into the world'?

My description of AC championing the mistaken conceptions is what 'illicit' means.

Now, if your version was to come true today, then there has to be a major acceptance of the historic Gospel (a la the letter of Hebrews)--not a millenial kingdom king and offer-- some time after a Jewish person offers a Judaic millenial kingdom. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Douggg]

Did the Galilee location matter when the claim they understood him to have have fulfilled was 'this is the Prophet who was to come into the world'?

It did not fulfill Zechariah 9 for certain because the location was in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

My description of AC championing the mistaken conceptions is what 'illicit' means.

The Jews of today and then were not looking at the messiah to be a king over Galilee, Samaria, or Judeah. The messiah was always thought to be the promised King over united Israel.

Now, if your version was to come true today, then there has to be a major acceptance of the historic Gospel (a la the letter of Hebrews)--not a millenial kingdom king and offer-- some time after a Jewish person offers a Judaic millenial kingdom. Is that what you are saying?

Of course, the Jews and Israel enter the millennium as Christians.

They become Christians, turning to Jesus, when the Antichrist reveals that he is the man of sin. And he spends the next 42 months persecuting them, his own people - Isaiah 14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

 

[Danoh]

Dougg, per passages like John chapter one, Mark chapter one, Matthew chapters ten, fifteen, and sixteen, Luke chapter one, chapter two, and chapter twenty-four, believing Israel is Messianic Christian,not Body of Christ Christian, 2 Corinthians five.

Those Jews in the Body were after Israel's temporary blinding.

 

[ebedmelech]

Do the Jews understand the Davidic covenant?

Many who comes to Christ do! How does that matter though? What scripture says is the focus...not what the Jews believe.

 

[Rev20]

Some on here; for all their OWN reasoning INTO as to "what the Lord meant by 'this generation,'" actually make themselves a generation in the following, exact same tradition - "in THEM is fulfilled" the Lord's "But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced, we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented... Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word," Matt. 11: 16, 17; John 8:43.

I understand, Danoh. I can plainly see that Dispensationalists are like those children in the marketplace. Not surprisingly, their beliefs are/were virtually the same: an earthly kingdom for Israel.

One day you will come to realize that the kingdom of Christ is "not of this world" (John 18:36.)


.