Esther4:14

They have his picture on several of the magazine covers in the store. The new Pope sure seems to enjoy being a celebrity. It really just makes me want to vomit if I am being perfectly honest. I mean it is one thing for Lady GaGa to want to be a celebrity. It is another for someone who professes to be a servant of Christ to be soaking up the media attention like a sponge in this way.

I would like to share what I think about this verse if that's okay. I think it is Nehemiah 8:10 is in reference to Ecclesiastes 9:7 Nehemiah 8:10 "Then he said to them, “Go, eat of the fat, drink of the sweet, and send portions to him who has nothing prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not be grieved, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.” Ecclesiastes 9:7 "Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do." Therefore, His approval (joy for them) is their strength and they do not need to be grieved anymore. Therefore, we are approved when we keep His commandments, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full" (John 15:11). And, we become the righteousness of God through Christ and experience His joy (2 Corinthians 5:21), which is our strength (Philippians 4:13). We also run the race with perseverance for the complete joy of spending an eternity in the presence of God (Hebrews 12:1-2; Revelation 21:23); and experience joy in grief in this life because "whoever humbles himself shall be exalted" (Matthew 23:12) and the joy of the Lord is his strength (Nehemiah 8:10).

So, I was reading this verse again last night and I wanted to share what I learned if that's okay. What Jesus is stressing in this verse is that the prophecy will not be changed. It has been determined (Daniel 9:27). It will not be changed (Revelation 22:18). Therefore, the time frame that it takes for these things to take place, defines the concept of generation. Therefore, this generation is the generation that existed when all His words concerning the prophecy were fulfilled. However, the most important aspect when all is said and done, is that they were fulfilled and everything that He said would come to pass, did. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matthew 24:33-34). It is like he is saying my words will be fulfilled, so be ready (Luke 12:35-48).

That is beautiful and very true.

Esther, I don't know where you obtained this information, but it is evident that you do not really know enough about this translation to comment on it. You have tried to make King James into a blackguard rather than address the merits of the translation itself, and that does not edify anyone. The next time you comment on this subject, please do your research thoroughly. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a king COMMISSIONING a translation and a king TRANSLATING. If you knew anything about this translation you would would have known that there were 54 outstanding CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS who translated the Authorized Version, and not King James himself. And the reason this translation came into existence is because the MOST CONSERVATIVE Christians in the Church of England -- the Puritans -- desired a translation which was faithful, reliable, accurate, and free from ecclesiastical biases -- indeed the best out of many good English translations. That God blessed this translation mightily and used it for over 400 years throughout the English-speaking world speaks for itself. Today, the reason knowledgeable Christians use the KJV is because it is solidly based on the true Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. It is also a WORD-FOR-WORD translation and it was the standard English Bible for hundreds of years. Ezra, I obtained my information from my own personal study into the subject. There is more information I could offer, but in my experience, people who are KJV only are the most resistant to hearing these things because they believe the KJV is superior; therefore, they are superior in their understanding about everything. I have yet to realize how the version seems to mold people in this way, but most of them are usually somewhat the same. They get very easily offended in regard to this subject, they are very vocal about it, and they are rather rude in the delivery of their argument; which all indicates to me, that they are not really getting the message of love that they need from scripture because they show very little fruit when it comes to discussing the subject. The passage I cited when the KJV translates love as charity the same way the Douay-Rheims bible does might be a start in understanding why this is It also was the standard English Bible because King James made it the new standard of the English language, which they created to a certain extent in translating the King James. So, yes, I don't think it is corrupt because they changed the language, not the scripture, to pacify the people in the translation. Like for example, using the letter J. This letter was not used in the English language, but originates in the 16th century. But, the decision to use the letter J seems to have changed the way we pronounce the name Yeshua to Jesus, which is interesting and originates in the King James Version. Overall, somehow or another, King James made a compromise in his Bible intended to pacify the protestants to satisfy the Catholics; as well as, try to make more people like him because there was a plot to kill him when he became King of England. King James has no identifying features that would cause one to otherwise describe him as a Christian to alleviate suspicion of this. I believe this Bible pacifies people today which is evident in the way people who believe KJV is the only accurate translation all resemble the same cut out. It is like you can spot them a mile away. Like, they have all been oppressed. Therefore, maybe instead of complaining, you could do something different like buy a copy of the book Daemonologie by King James and read for yourself what he has to say on the subject. Then, maybe your argument would sound less presumptuous. Therefore, I really think you ignored my whole argument because you are not really educated enough in the history of King James to comment with anything other the same information that you were already familiar with that commonly used to sell the KJV the way a car salesman sprays new car scent to entice people to buy cars. Like I said, I own the book. I referenced it and did my own study because I am intelligent, creative, and familiar enough with scripture to discern material outside of the Bible and form my own opinion. I do not need someone to teach me elementary things and when I became a Christian I did not join a club. I saw tragic things happening in the world and I believed that Jesus is our salvation from our suffering. Unfortunately, letting Jesus teach you something and making friends because they believe the same things you want to believe about Christianity are two different things. I may not make as many friends addressing the KJV only argument in this way, but I want to move a mountain so that people will be saved. If this means that I experience loneliness along the way because people want to hold on what they want to believe rather than follow Jesus, that is fine with me. I just don't see many KJV people doing anything but complaining and being rather rude to people in most cases in their endeavor to win votes for the KJV only, and I do not believe that this is what Jesus would do. So, the choice seems to be; do you follow the KJV only crowd? or, do you follow Jesus? "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it," (Matthew 16:25).

I think that generally when the argument comes up over versions of the Bible, the consensus opposing newer translations points towards the KJV as the flawless remnant of recent attacks on the integrity of scripture. However, I believe that if there are people who wanted to corrupt the Bible today, they were present in the times of King James, and the KJV is really the father of this phenomenon in the English translations in my opinion. It is interesting that because of the KJV, every one seems to be under the impression that King James was a saint. However, King James was a man who inherited a somewhat large kingdom when Queen Elizabeth died and he loved being king. His writings exude his love and belief in his divine appointment as king, and he was a Scottish man inheriting the kingdom of England when protestants were opposing the Catholic church. They favored the Geneva bible and King James was not a English man. So, to make everyone happy, the King James Bible was commissioned. Therefore, it was created more for political reasons than for providing a accurate translation to the public. The Catholic church favored the Douay-Rheims and within the KJV you can actually see the compromise between this religiously diverse climate in the translating of the King James version. In the Geneva Bible, 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 reads, "Love suffereth long: it is bountiful: love envieth not: love doth not boast itself: it is not puffed up:" KJV reads, " Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up," and the Douay-Rheims reads, "Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up;" In using the charity rather than love, it could be argued that for one: King James was trying to make everyone happy because all he cared about was being King; two, in trying to make everyone happy, he was promoting the Catholic agenda of works to receive salvation as charity is an action or works. This is just one example. King James was also a writer himself and there is still writing of his in publication titled Daemonologie, which I own and have read. King James knows way too much about the subject for my taste, and there are other aspects about the way that the King James is structured that make me question his integrity in commissioning it's publication. I find it interesting that a book intended for the public was written in a poetic structure rather than the prose style of the time that is easier to read. But, at the end of the day, trying to manipulate the structure of the text, is not the same thing as corrupting the text. Therefore, I think that many people have tried to no avail to tweak this or that or add a grammatical mark here or there to try to oppress the power of the word of God to no avail, which is why I am not worried about using modern translations. Historically, corrupting the word of God is not an easy task without being found out, as the Gnostic gospels are a testament of. Personally, I like using a version called the Hebraic Roots Bible, which is the independent translation of an independent ministry.

yes, I agree with you. I even thought it was hilarious when I found out this was the subject of theological debate.

Well, I think that as a Christian it is important to test the spirits to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1). Therefore, it is important for us to be discerning false teaching within the church. However, we do not need to be dependent on other peoples interpretation of what false teaching is though either. Ideally, what you want to be able to do when you see these videos talking about false teachers, is dialogue with them so to speak. You want to be able to follow the argument they are presenting to you, and form a conclusion based on your understanding of scripture-not theirs. To do this will require a significant investment of your time in studying scripture in the beginning. But, after you have some solid familiarity with scripture, defending the Gospel is just fun. Today, there are many different plans available that will help you set a goal for reading through the Bible. I would like to suggest doing the 90-day Bible study at least once. It is will really help you to discipline yourself to spend the time necessary in the scripture to really get something out of it. I have done it twice and it definitely changed my life and changed the way I look at Bible study. When you spend 90 days reading about 13 chapters a day, reading 13 chapters a week is no longer a chore. It just feels like a much lighter load that I enjoy a lot more than before. There is a schedule for it on Facebook, Biblegateway.com, and the Bible App on Android that I know of. Take care

I say that people have spent time considering this in conversation with other people and this is the conclusion that they came up; and, then shared with other people? hmm, I think that if this is what some people are telling you; maybe, there is a nice way to tell them that since no one is asking them this question right now, praise Jesus and read the Bible instead of having conversations like this. Then, in answer to the question, I am going to praise Jesus that I am not in this situation right now; and, I am going to pray to escape all that is to happen and stand before Him one day (Luke 21:36) and read my Bible in the meantime.

There are many interesting things I think of when I think about this question. The first thing that comes to mind is that Job is not generally appreciated for its prophetic application so I would assume that the heavens described here is just a way to describe the sky above from a perspective of humility in regard to the things that can't be understood in the sky above. Therefore, it is simply called, "the Heavens." However, there is little background information on the book of Job, and there is speculation over when it was written. Personally, I think it was either written by King Solomon or someone very familiar with King Solomon's writings because it reads like a string of Proverbs glued together in a narrative. Therefore, it is possible that there could have been other prophecies at the time that resemble, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days: 'The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Matthew 24:29) considering Martha was familiar with the resurrection (John 11:24). This was the next thing I thought of when I read this verse is that this is something prophetic slipped into a fictional narrative of Job about this prophetic event that Jesus says will happen in the future, which is interesting. But, besides that I don't think he is distinguishing a specific heaven, however, they are distinguished.

That is called "Replacement Theology" and is a false teaching. The Church is not Israel and Christians are not Jews. In the Bible, the Church is the Church and Israel is Israel and they are radically separate. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians called Jews. "So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." (Luke 23:3). Jesus death on the cross set Israel free from the leaders who were destroying and scattering the sheep (Jeremiah 23:1), and it was the descendants of Israel who built the church apart form the ones who had led them into captivity not too long before. The King of the Jews set blameless Jews like Peter, and Andrew, and Thomas free from the ones who "shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in peoples faces" (Matthew 23:13); and didn't realize they were victims of this spiritual offence. It is these same people who want the world to believe that the church is not the descendants of Israel already. Who has wanted to reject that Jesus was the true messiah more than a Jew with authority like the Pharisees or the descendants of Herod. It is these people who have taken the identity of Israel away from the church today. I mean really, the 12 disciples were Jewish. There were millions of Jewish converts after Pentecost. But, somehow or another, the church today is made up of gentiles and the ones that represent Israel are the ones who have still not accepted Jesus as the Messiah. This is a teaching of Pharisees. Sure there are still descendants of Israel who could accept Christ as the disciples did. I would hope that they would. But, the church descends from Israel already. The church represents Israel. The Jews today represent another part of the world that remains to preach the gospel too, because there have been many already who do not even know that they descend from Israel, because they took their identity away throughout the last 2000 years of persecution. Because Israel remains divided over Christ. It is like we talk about Israel today as though Jesus did not preach in Jerusalem and went to South Africa or something. It is like those who are descendants of Israel within the church today don't deserve to inherit Israel the same way the one who remain a Jew because they never accepted Christ do. So, yes God still loves the Jewish people (in other words, the church) today. That is called "Replacement Theology" and is a false teaching. The Church is not Israel and Christians are not Jews. In the Bible, the Church is the Church and Israel is Israel and they are radically separate. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians call What I said is not called replacement theology. It is called common sense. If Paul was preaching to Jews and gentiles in the book of Romans, then if your Italian there is a 50/50 chance that you descend from Israel. The thing is because there is no Jew or Greek in the body of Christ, this reality is blurred now so there is no difference between us anymore. That is not the same as saying that the church supercedes Judaism. Same thing goes for Spain. There were forced conversions during the inquisition. Because of persecution many Jews have hidden their identity as Jews and converted to Christianity and this is lost several hundreds years later. It is called common sense realizing that body of Christ is a blended family of Jew and gentile already.

Well, technically, the "Palestinians" people have just as much right to receive Christ as a Jew. "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;" (Romans 10:12). Therefore, technically, as Christians we should be just as concerned with whether the Palestinians are saved as the Jews. Unfortunately, there is a lot of propaganda playing them up as enemies of each so that we will take sides. The media can play it up so that Christians will obviously take the side of the Jew because that is where the Christian faith was born. However, the media is only manipulating us to neglect the teachings of Jesus in doing this. As followers of Christ, we are supposed to "love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked." (Luke 6:35). So, the fabricated concept of the Palestinians being "enemies" of the Jew is a fabrication that is stumbling block for the church to go against the teachings of Jesus. Technically, even if we were go back to doing all this according to the law, His law was more gracious towards the Palestinians than we appear to be at times. "The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God," (Leviticus 19:34). "And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt," (Deuteronomy 10:19). "The LORD watches over the foreigner and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked," (Psalms 146:9). "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law," (Romans 3:31). Therefore, overall, as Christians we should be equally concerned about where the residents of Israel will spend eternity.

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1). And, I would disagree that it got worse. It was already pretty bad. But, Jesus' death on the cross will separate the wheat from the tares, and we are free from dependence on a priesthood in the meantime. We do not need someone to make the offering for us because Jesus interceded for the people who were under a yoke of slavery.

This just demonstrates how completely people do not understand what they criticize. This is absolutely, utterly false. While, I do think that it is possible for you to speak for yourself. I would believe you if you said to me that you believed that Jesus is the son of God and he died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins. However, I find it hard to believe that you are capable of speaking on behalf of the whole Catholic church. I do not think it is possible for you to definitively say that the whole RCC believes the same as you do, which you continuously try to do. It would be the same if I tried to speak on behalf of an entire denomination. It is not something that is possible to do. There will always be error within the church until the tares are separated from the wheat. I'm not speaking just for myself Esther when I speak about what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn't teach. The Catholic Church is clear on what She teaches. This is something I have studied in depth. However, many people get it wrong. Now when it comes to what individual Catholics believe, as I've said, cradle catholics are well known for not having been correctly taught the Catholic faith so I would not be surprised to hear all sorts of things, but I will say this. I have never met a cradle Catholic who could not distinguish between worship due God alone and honor given to others. I have never met a cradle catholic who didn't believe Jesus was their savior. How well a person understands the Catholic faith is dependent on how well they were taught the Catholic faith. As I've said before, from the middle of the last century, catechesis has not been very good. I was not catechized in the Catholic Church. I came to my understanding through in depth research. I have been told by other Catholics who know their Catholic faith that I know it better than 99% of Catholics in the US, which is a very sad thing. Well this may be true to a certain extent too. It does appear that you desire to defend the aspects of the Catholic church that motivated you to become a member of that denomination. However, this still does not suggest that because of the favoritism of some aspects, sometimes you do not seem very willing to look at things which are documented and are errors within this denomination of the body of Christ. Instead, you suggest that they are only the delusion of the person you are in conversation with as opposed to saying that the teaching representing the Catholic Church is in error because you do not agree with this teaching either. Instead, you suggest it doesn't exist. Actually I honestly and deeply looked at everything that has been called an error in their teaching. What I learned is what we called errors were only errors in our perceptions of what the Catholic Church teaches. Not actually what She teaches. The vast majority, in fact 99% of doctrines are also found in protestantism. To take issue with them in Catholicism is to take issue with them in Protestantism as well. it's not really a Catholic vs Protestant issue. It is do we believe this or that issue. We disagree on some doctrines, but it's not because I am Catholic. I came to these beliefs before I became Catholic. I came to my beliefs through careful study of scripture, history and the ECF's. What I suggest is that what you perceive as error is a result of a misunderstanding of what Catholics believe, how they beleive it, and where its place is in the bigger scheme of Catholic doctrines and dogmas. People who take issue with Catholic teaching have never been able to correctly describe the teaching they have issues with. They present a distortion of that teaching and if the teaching was the way they presented it, I would have issues with it to. If a Catholic tells someone they have distorted view of a teaching, the logical thing to do is to understand why the Catholic says this and to find out how their own view of it is distorted. However, such a response rarely happens. Okay then, on June 25, 2014, Pope Francis is on videotape saying verbatim, "There are those who believe you can have a personal, direct, and immediate relationship with Jesus Christ outside the communion and mediation of the church. These temptations are dangerous and harmful. They are, in the words of the great Pope Paul VI, 'absurd dichotomies." Now, these are the direct words that he used before a large audience. Now, I realize that what he is saying is a subtle error because the only real issue I have with what he is saying is the part about the necessity of the mediation of the church. Most people agree with the benefit of communion with believers. There is no disagreement with this, but he works in that the it is dangerous to consider yourself as having a relationship with Jesus that is not dependent on the mediation of the church; and, NO, I do not need mediation from the church. I share the gifts of the Spirit that He has given me and participate in communion with the body of Christ as a free agent. The teaching of Ignatius may have spoke on blind authority to a Bishop, but the apostles never talked about blindly following authority or requiring mediation from the church. John said, "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God," (1 John 4:1). To me, requiring mediation and overlooking the responsibility of testing the spirits, is a hop, skip, and jump away from being returning to a oppressive legalistic setting. So, do you see error in what Pope Francis is saying?

This just demonstrates how completely people do not understand what they criticize. This is absolutely, utterly false. While, I do think that it is possible for you to speak for yourself. I would believe you if you said to me that you believed that Jesus is the son of God and he died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins. However, I find it hard to believe that you are capable of speaking on behalf of the whole Catholic church. I do not think it is possible for you to definitively say that the whole RCC believes the same as you do, which you continuously try to do. It would be the same if I tried to speak on behalf of an entire denomination. It is not something that is possible to do. There will always be error within the church until the tares are separated from the wheat. I'm not speaking just for myself Esther when I speak about what the Catholic Church teaches or doesn't teach. The Catholic Church is clear on what She teaches. This is something I have studied in depth. However, many people get it wrong. Now when it comes to what individual Catholics believe, as I've said, cradle catholics are well known for not having been correctly taught the Catholic faith so I would not be surprised to hear all sorts of things, but I will say this. I have never met a cradle Catholic who could not distinguish between worship due God alone and honor given to others. I have never met a cradle catholic who didn't believe Jesus was their savior. How well a person understands the Catholic faith is dependent on how well they were taught the Catholic faith. As I've said before, from the middle of the last century, catechesis has not been very good. I was not catechized in the Catholic Church. I came to my understanding through in depth research. I have been told by other Catholics who know their Catholic faith that I know it better than 99% of Catholics in the US, which is a very sad thing. Well this may be true to a certain extent too. It does appear that you desire to defend the aspects of the Catholic church that motivated you to become a member of that denomination. However, this still does not suggest that because of the favoritism of some aspects, sometimes you do not seem very willing to look at things which are documented and are errors within this denomination of the body of Christ. Instead, you suggest that they are only the delusion of the person you are in conversation with as opposed to saying that the teaching representing the Catholic Church is in error because you do not agree with this teaching either. Instead, you suggest it doesn't exist.

This just demonstrates how completely people do not understand what they criticize. This is absolutely, utterly false. While, I do think that it is possible for you to speak for yourself. I would believe you if you said to me that you believed that Jesus is the son of God and he died and rose again for the forgiveness of sins. However, I find it hard to believe that you are capable of speaking on behalf of the whole Catholic church. I do not think it is possible for you to definitively say that the whole RCC believes the same as you do, which you continuously try to do. It would be the same if I tried to speak on behalf of an entire denomination. It is not something that is possible to do. There will always be error within the church until the tares are separated from the wheat.

It means that you are her children if you hate what is evil because to fear the lord is to hate evil and this is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 8:13; Proverbs 9:10); and, what keeps a person from doing what is right, or loving kindness, or walking humbly with God except fear of evil rather than contempt for evil in the fear of the Lord (Micah6:8).

"So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." (Luke 23:3). Jesus death on the cross set Israel free from the leaders who were destroying and scattering the sheep (Jeremiah 23:1), and it was the descendants of Israel who built the church apart form the ones who had led them into captivity not too long before. The King of the Jews set blameless Jews like Peter, and Andrew, and Thomas free from the ones who "shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in peoples faces" (Matthew 23:13); and didn't realize they were victims of this spiritual offence. It is these same people who want the world to believe that the church is not the descendants of Israel already. Who has wanted to reject that Jesus was the true messiah more than a Jew with authority like the Pharisees or the descendants of Herod. It is these people who have taken the identity of Israel away from the church today. I mean really, the 12 disciples were Jewish. There were millions of Jewish converts after Pentecost. But, somehow or another, the church today is made up of gentiles and the ones that represent Israel are the ones who have still not accepted Jesus as the Messiah. This is a teaching of Pharisees. Sure there are still descendants of Israel who could accept Christ as the disciples did. I would hope that they would. But, the church descends from Israel already. The church represents Israel. The Jews today represent another part of the world that remains to preach the gospel too, because there have been many already who do not even know that they descend from Israel, because they took their identity away throughout the last 2000 years of persecution. Because Israel remains divided over Christ. It is like we talk about Israel today as though Jesus did not preach in Jerusalem and went to South Africa or something. It is like those who are descendants of Israel within the church today don't deserve to inherit Israel the same way the one who remain a Jew because they never accepted Christ do. So, yes God still loves the Jewish people (in other words, the church) today.

I agree with what you are saying. The early church had an understanding that they needed to persevere, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t become weary with life. I think you have a very good point, but I did want to add that there are a couple of accounts in scripture when Job and Jeremiah wish they hadn’t been born and Elijah did not want to live anymore (1 Kings 19:4; Job 3; Jeremiah 20:14-15). Therefore, there were times when the suffering got to them, but they still chose to persevere after they wished they had never been born or didn’t want to continue living. I know this, because these testimonies in scripture are a few of the reasons that I am still alive today. Briefly, I have PTSD because of severe abuse as a child. I struggle with it every day, but there were a few years that I wanted to die because of it almost every day, and had to push myself to read the Bible. It is a very surreal experience when you read the Bible when you are suffering this way. I think it is possible that you notice things that you wouldn’t otherwise notice, and I noticed very clearly when the Bible gave an indication that God understood how I felt, and that He didn’t need me to pretend to be happy. It was in these moments reading about the aforementioned people, that He gave me dignity even when the suffering remained, which allowed me to survive. But, the church doesn’t seem to always understand this in my experience. They don’t seem to understand the concept of persevering through suffering like the suffering that was present in the early church. Sometimes, it seems like the church doesn’t even want to hear about it. It is as though it will upset them too much to hear that some people are suffering this much; and, the sad part is that if this man were still alive there wouldn’t be a better answer to give him. Quoting Jeremiah 29:11 is nice and all, but you can only hear this verse so many times before you have to admit that this does not answer the question. This does not explain to me why I continue to suffer the way I am. This man was a pastor, so I imagine he might feel the same I did when I was suffering, which was that I was doing everything that everyone said to do. I was tithing, I went to church every Sunday, I read the Bible, I wanted to believe that God had a plan for my life; so why do I still not want to live? Can anyone answer that question? No one ever could. However, He did one day when I reading Jeremiah 12 and Jeremiah is complaining to God about how people continue the way they are and do not change or repent. The Lord responds to his complaint by saying, “If you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, how can you compete with horses? If you stumble in safe country, how will you manage in the thickets by the Jordan?” (Jeremiah 12:5). And there is the answer for why I continue in suffering, because He wants me to push myself to do what I don’t think I am capable to doing. He wants me to race with horses… That is all I want to share on this subject.

And extra-biblical teaching is something which is not found in the Bible. But the Rapture is indeed the Blessed Hope of the Church, so perhaps you need to go back and study the Rapture (1 Thess 4:13-18): 13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. No one reading Acts chapter 3 (other than Omegaman) will even imagine that Peter has to say anything about this. No offense Ezra, but this is not a good verse to prove your point. For one it says that Jesus will descend from Heaven the same way Peter said he would meaning that they are both talking about the same thing. For two, it describes the dead in Christ rising first, which is more than likely referring to the millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20 because they are considered blessed (Revelation 20:6). So, they are both talking about the same thing unless we try to make something up to differentiate them from each other. They are both talking about things that are written in the last couple chapters of Revelation.

The subject of this thread is not the Tribulation, the Rapture, the Two Witnesses, the Seals or anything else but the original mandate of the Balfour Declaration. If you don't think that millions of Jews resettling in Israel, starting with that declaration, is the restoration of that country then I am baffled as to what you DO think that signifies. 2 Thessalonians 2:4;9-12 talks about this. "He opposes every so-called god or anything that is worshiped and places himself above them, sitting in God’s temple and claiming to be God...The man of sin will come with the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous and wonderful signs. But they will be lies. 10 He will use everything that God disapproves of to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. 11 That’s why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie. 12 Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned." Migrating Jews who were victims of the Holocaust is a way to justify these verses fulfilled. The problem is that the way we are interpreting prophecy is a hodge pog. We are talking about rapture, tribulations, things getting worse, the seals and the whole schebang being fulfilled in seven years; and, expecting that the restoration of Israel is happening simultaneously with this interpretation, which doesn’t really make sense. It just doesn’t make sense to say that the world is going to come under His wrath so He plans on picking up believers the way He picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire. But, what happens to the plans for the present interpretation of the restoration of Israel. Does He just press the hold button? The whole picture of how we are interpreting prophecy doesn’t fit together very well. These things can’t all happen simultaneously. The prophecy says the witnesses, “dead bodies will lie on the street of the important city where their Lord was crucified,” (Revelation 11:8). If that hasn’t happened yet, does that sound like something that would happen in Israel if this was the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel? However, I think the reason that we are so willing to believe that this is part of the fulfillment of prophecy is because we want those who are Jewish and still don’t accept the Messiah to be saved. We have the desire to see to Israel restored. However, the desire and the reality are two different things. The book of Revelation does a lot to contradict that this is the fulfillment of the words of the prophets concerning Israel. It does not describe a restoration of Israel until after the time of great tribulation. The subject of this thread is not the Tribulation, the Rapture, the Two Witnesses, the Seals or anything else but the original mandate of the Balfour Declaration. If you don't think that millions of Jews resettling in Israel, starting with that declaration, is the restoration of that country then I am baffled as to what you DO think that signifies. I understand that. I was using them to answer the question because they are relevant to consider whether this is the fulfillment of prophecy. So maybe, you might want to explain how you think the process of restoration transitions through the period of tribulation; and, how this can be considered the restoration of Israel according to the account in Revelation 11 which says that the witnesses will die in the city where their Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8)? I just don't see how they fit together. And, I will tell that I do think that this signifies setting the stage to fulfill Revelation 11, so hopefully you will not feel baffled anymore. But, again, like I said earlier. I have the same desire to see people saved who migrated to Israel. I do not think they are responsible for this. I would love for them to find Jesus and be saved and for them to experience the joy of restoration.

Actually Omegaman failed to show whether Peter was even talking about the Rapture, let along the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. Peter was addressing Jews and talking about the restoration of all things pertaining to the Jews and Israel (as I already showed above). Right, when I read your argument, I thought it was a very legalistic interpretation of a simple precept. Peter was a disciple of Jesus and He didn't talk about the rapture; therefore, it is more than likely that the teaching of the rapture is an extra biblical teaching. I think that it is unfortunate that you would complicate the simplicity of an account of a simple man giving a message to the people concerning the time of His return through the power of the Holy Spirit. I also found that Omegaman's message from these scripture reached a conclusion almost effortlessly, and your argument required a lot of effort to understand and required that I change many other scriptures to accommodate it as an interpretation. Therefore, I stand by what I said to begin with. "Come to me, all who are tired from carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest. 29 Place my yoke over your shoulders, and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble. Then you will find rest for yourselves 30 because my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”(Matthew 11:28-30).

Personally, I think what was causing the problem was not Churchill but the map identifying the (UN Admin) under the name of the Holy city Jerusalem. I just don't picture the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob telling them to let the UN set up shop on His land. I don't have any issues with the restoration of Israel myself. I think that an end to the persecution of the church is something to look forward to in the future. Israel didn't have to worry about persecution or suffer hardship if they obeyed the Lord. I would love that. I have had kind of a tough life you know. I wouldn't mind being asked to travel to a land of milk and honey and be given everything I could ever possibly want like Israel was. I just don't know that when I read the Bible and compare the stories of Israel inheriting the land in the Old Testament, to the stories of the Jews migrating to Israel after the Holocaust. I don't know, something just rubs me the wrong way. I just don't picture God restoring Israel through such a barbaric event like the holocaust. In the Old Testament, when the tribes of Jacob inherited Israel, it was fairly effortless in comparison. This does not seem effortless, which makes me question whether this "restoration of Israel" that we are told is taking place, is the actual restoration of Israel. So the Jews have been coming back for over sixty five years now to the country which declared itself to be Israel but you don't think this is the restoration of that country? What is it then???? c So 2 Thessalonians 2:4;9-12 talks about this. "He opposes every so-called god or anything that is worshiped and places himself above them, sitting in God’s temple and claiming to be God...The man of sin will come with the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous and wonderful signs. But they will be lies. 10 He will use everything that God disapproves of to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. 11 That’s why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie. 12 Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned." Migrating Jews who were victims of the Holocaust is a way to justify these verses fulfilled. The problem is that the way we are interpreting prophecy is a hodge pog. We are talking about rapture, tribulations, things getting worse, the seals and the whole schebang being fulfilled in seven years; and, expecting that the restoration of Israel is happening simultaneously with this interpretation, which doesn’t really make sense. It just doesn’t make sense to say that the world is going to come under His wrath so He plans on picking up believers the way He picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire. But, what happens to the plans for the present interpretation of the restoration of Israel. Does He just press the hold button? The whole picture of how we are interpreting prophecy doesn’t fit together very well. These things can’t all happen simultaneously. The prophecy says the witnesses, “dead bodies will lie on the street of the important city where their Lord was crucified,” (Revelation 11:8). If that hasn’t happened yet, does that sound like something that would happen in Israel if this was the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel? However, I think the reason that we are so willing to believe that this is part of the fulfillment of prophecy is because we want those who are Jewish and still don’t accept the Messiah to be saved. We have the desire to see to Israel restored. However, the desire and the reality are two different things. The book of Revelation does a lot to contradict that this is the fulfillment of the words of the prophets concerning Israel. It does not describe a restoration of Israel until after the time of great tribulation.

your right then, it does look like we are in Ezekiel 26. The Balfour Declaration sounds exactly like verse 5. "Surely I have spoken in my hot jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave my land to themselves as a possession with wholehearted joy and utter contempt, that they might make its pasturelands a prey." This would line up with Revelation 18 where Babylon is fallen because God's wrath has been completed against the nations, and all of Edom, who took Israel for themselves like when they enacted a Balfour declaration. They took Israel as a possession for themselves and set up the UN administration building in Jerusalem. The UN is very motivated in pursuing something like an international united states, which lines up more with the prophecy of the Antichrist than with the restoration of Israel. They issued a report on the subject called "Our Global Neighborhood The Report of the Commission on Global Governance." So, is Israel really being restored? If this is the restoration of Israel, when do you think the UN is going to leave and the nation will actually become a nation under God like it was in the time of David, which Ezekial 26:25-26 suggests? When did Israel ever exist as it does today when the people inherited the land after their time in the wilderness? They never had other nations piggy backing them like they have since they were taken to Babylon. When does He ever share His glory with other nations? Is it not true that other nations are receiving glory for the restoration of Israel in our present age? The true restoration of Israel, on the other hand, is going to be much better than this. It is as though we forget how He delivered His people from Egypt when we talk about the state of Israel being the evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy. It is like we do not think things like being delivered by the strong arm of God can happen anymore (Jeremiah 32:21). The true restoration of Israel will return Israel to a better state than the one they were in when they inherited the land after their time in the wilderness, which the present state of Israel does not even come close to being a comparison of that time, much less a better time to come. The prophecy of the restoration of Israel talks about things that don't pertain to gaining land back entirely, but about being given a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 26:26). It is about being clean from all uncleanness (Ezekiel 26:25). Revelation 21:27 says, "and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life." Unfortunately, the Balfour declaration is not capable of restoring these things and the prophecy suggests that the true restoration of Israel will not happen until after the tribulation is over.

So why do you think that God would not restore Israel because of the Holocaust? Is Jewish suffering not enough for you to believe that the Lord would give his chosen people their land back? Did they not suffer enough to deserve a nation? The Bible is very clear that Israel would be restored after great hardship (read the book of Ezekiel). And by the way, when the Jews got their land back, it was not a land of milk and honey. It was barren, desolate and much of it was desert. The rest was poor ground riddled with swamps. Jewish efforts and hard work restored the land to what it is today. Many Jews died clearing the land. Many died of malaria. Modern Israel is a miracle in modern technology and irrigation. In fact, the Jewish efforts were so successful that many Arabs emigrated there to find work. In Arab hands the land was useless but as soon as the Jews restored it, everybody wanted a piece of it. There are many, many reasons that I do not this is the restoration that the book of Ezekiel is talking about, but I don't want to waste too much of your time, so I will try to be brief. Basically, Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace, but division (Luke 12:51), and He did. The nation of Israel is divided over Him still, as they were in the early church because although we are accustomed to think that the modern church today is made up of converted gentiles. It is actually blended, and Israel is represented within the church already. There are many, many descendants of Israel within the church who are descendants of early converts to Christianity. Many of the apostles themselves were married and more than likely had children. However, I would imagine that the Jews who didn't want Jesus to be their Messiah have covered this connection up as much as possible reading more and more of the early church writings and how much they had to say about the writings of Moses and the Old Testament. There was a strong connection Jesus as Messiah of Israel in the early church. However, today, we seem to be under the impression that the church represents the gentile nations and the Jews represent Israel, and this is not true. In the epistle concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, Herod tried to persuade him saying, "What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar,440 and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?" (p. 109 http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Ante-Nicene-Fathers-Vol-1.pdf?b5c044). This led to a crowd of Jews and gentiles wanted him to be put to death (p. 111). So, the Jews have been persecuting other Jews and the church for years. That is not to say that I am not a fan of the Hebraic roots movement. I am familiar with other ministries that are preaching the gospel to Israel, and all of this is awesome. The people living today cannot be condemned for the sins of their fathers (Ezekiel 18:20). Everyone deserves a chance to repent. However, the people rebuilding the state of Israel and creating the Balfour declaration might be more like Herod than like Peter, and the intention of rebuilding Israel is no where near what the scriptures describes as the restoration of Israel. What the descendants of Herod want is another Messiah; or, in other words, the Antichrist and this is who appears to be rebuilding Israel. It is like they are just waiting for the right time to have the son of perdition lead the world from the UN administration building in Jerusalem, and they are letting a bunch of innocent people who are descendants of Israel, who have not accepted Christ as Messiah, and have suffered through the terror of the holocaust, to live there to justify doing this. Therefore, the Jewish people today are still being victimized because of this. What they need more than anything is for Jesus to deliver them from their present captivity. It is also possible that when Ezekiel is talking about restoration of Israel, he is talking about an end of persecution because it is possible that the persecution of the church throughout history has been the result of the continuing judgement against Israel because the Christian church is already largely made up of descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel and our time wandering in the wilderness is going to come to an end. Therefore, it is possible that the two witnesses of Revelation represent Caleb and Joshua who went out to claim Israel when their time in the wilderness had finished. Finally, the verses concerning restoration of Israel written by the prophets appear to be referring to a time after the tribulation, and not before it. There are verses in the book of Ezekiel that point towards a restoration of Israel; however, they do not appear to line up with the book of Revelation until John tells us about the new Jerusalem. There is no mention of a restoration of Israel before that in the book of Revelation. I also want to point out again that I understand that this can be a sensitive subject, so I just want to reiterate that I am trying to offend anyone with my observations. I pray we may embrace scripture like the Berean's as we seek to understand the times we are living in. "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11).