OldCoot

Even Elijah had worried thoughts about being the only one left who remained faithful to the Lord..... 1 Kings 19:15-18 (NKJV) Then the Lord said to him: "Go, return on your way to the Wilderness of Damascus; and when you arrive, anoint Hazael as king over Syria. 16 Also you shall anoint Jehu the son of Nimshi as king over Israel. And Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah you shall anoint as prophet in your place. 17 It shall be that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu will kill; and whoever escapes the sword of Jehu, Elisha will kill. 18 Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him." I never worry about how corrupt things get, even in the churches, that there is not a remnant that will always be. And I don't really take a lot of stock in stuff that wants to chastise others over dates. First off, the quote about Yeshua being born on the 8th of Tishri is wrong. I do agree it is in the fall, but during the 7 days of the feast of Tabernacles that starts on the 15th of Tishri. The Lord had come to tabernacle among us. He was conceived around the feast of Hanukah, the festival of lights, as Yeshua is the light of the world. We know that from Luke's account. Zachariah, John the Baptists dad, was serving in his priestly division (1 Chronicles 24), the 8th division of Aviyah which would put his period of first service in the year roughly June when he was told by Gabriel about Elishavah bearing JB. We know that JB's mom, Elishavah, was in her 6th month (period of Hanukah) when Mariam was visited by Gabriel and told she would bear the Messiah. Miriam then went to stay with Elishavah for 3 months, which would be around Passover and the birth of JB. To this day, the Jewish people keep a place at the Passover Seder for Elijah. Yeshua said that JB came in the spirit and power of Elijah. Fast forward and the birth of Yeshua would be during the feast of Tabernacles, one of the feasts that every able bodied Hebrew was required to come to the vicinity of Jerusalem. And Bethlehem is just a few miles from Jerusalem. So the Christmas period is not all that far fetched. Maybe not the actual day of Yeshua's birth, but very likely the day of His conception. But to fuss over it is to lay guilt trips on the believers. Might be more critical for Hebrew believers in Yeshua, but for those of us who are gentiles, I don't worry about the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, as I am to follow the Noahide Law according to James and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

I will agree with that. There are some of the newer translations of Revelation 5 that will state something like... "made THEM kings and priests" as if the Elders are singing about another group than themselves as opposed to all the early translations clear back to the Latin Vulgate that says "made US kings and priests". It is very evident that these Elders are representative of the redeemed of Messiah that has been removed prior to the scroll seals being opened. I don't see a problem. Do you not think that there will be those who, by experiencing the disappearance of the righteous, will turn to Yeshua during that period? And Yeshua makes it very clear in Ezekiel 20, Joel 3, and Matthew 25 that all of both Israel and the Nations will be gathered and separated out. That has nothing to do with the redeemed that were removed prior to these things. There has to be some that go into the Millennial kingdom as mortals to repopulate the earth. But it is the Redeemed of the Body of Messiah that were removed prior to these things who will return with Him (Jude 1:14) and reign over the earth along with Him. Revelation 2:26-27

Well, given that 2 Chronicles lays out many instances where those of the northern kingdom of "Israel" that wished to remain faithful to the Lord migrated southward and aligned with Judah, the joining back together started before the Babylonian exile. One of those episodes of members of the northern tribes migrating south to Judah occurred over 100 years after the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom. After the exile, when Ezra brought his remnant back, he referred to them a Jews 9 times and Israel 40 times. When Nehemiah brought his remnant back from Babylon, he referred to them as Jews 11 times and Israel 22 times. The kingdom distinctions disappeared and by the Hasmonean period, Jew and Israel had solidified as synonymous terms. So by the time of Yeshua, "whole house of Israel" had returned to the meaning of Jacob/Israel. "whole" being the operative word. Kingdom distinctions were gone. Tribal distinctions did still remain, as there are at least 4 tribes referred to in the NT. Yeshua came for the spiritually lost of all Jacob/Israel. And Hosea 5-6 states that it is both those kingdom distinctions (Judah and Ephraim), all Jacob/Israel, that are responsible for causing Yeshua to return to His place due to the corporate, national rejection of Him. And it will be they who will have to acknowledge that rejection of Yeshua, turn to Him, and petition for His return before He will return again. Yeshua affirmed this in Matthew 23. And while those who come to faith in Yeshua are grafted in and feed on the root of the faith of Abraham, they do not replace or superseded physical Israel in any way. Literal, physical, corporate, national Jacob/Isreal has a destiny to fulfill yet. While we may not be able to identify physically who they are, the Lord must be able to or there is going to be some prophecy that will not be fulfilled, thereby the promises the Lord made will not be kept. The redeemed that make up the unique ekklesia of Messiah is, corporately, the bride of Messiah. Jacob/Israel is the wife of Yahweh that will one day be restored to that unique relationship as per Hosea 2 and other passages. They are not one in the same group as they each have unique destinies to fulfill. Based on what Hosea wrote, if there is no physical descendants of Jacob/Israel that can be identified, then Yeshua will never return. He stated explicitly in Hosea 5:15 that He would return to His place because of their offense. Well, for Him to return to His place, He had to have left it. That was His first coming. And He states that He would not come back here until they (all Jacob per Hosea 5:14) acknowledge their offense. So just the context alone means that what is being discussed regarding Israel has nothing to do with the church, which by definition is only made up of those who have come to faith in Yeshua. The church did not reject Yeshua and cause Him to return to His place. It was not even the Hebrew people in general that rejected Yeshua, as the start of the Church was exclusively Jewish. It was the leadership of corporate, national Jacob/Israel that did. And it will be that same identity that will have to acknowledge that offense and turn to Him before He will come back. And Yeshua says essentially the same thing in Matthew 23. And I am convinced it is because of this that Satan has expended a lot of effort in delegitimizing the Hebrew people (surprisingly by many in the church through history) and out right eliminating them from the earth whenever he could. But just like in the days of the prophets, the Lord always keeps a literal, physical remnant. And it will be from that remnant that the 144,000.... 12,000 from each of 12 tribes of Jacob... will come from as John told us in Revelation.

We also know that there were more than 24 priests in ancient Israel. But still, David divided the priests into 24 divisions. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

Except the events of the seals could not start if Yeshua doesn’t open the scroll in Revelation 6. So those events by default are under His direction. And in Revelation 5 the Elders identify themselves as the redeemed kings and priests, which is what Peter said we are. The division of priests into 24 groups was established in 1 Chronicles 24 Isaiah and Zephaniah state the redeemed are hidden from that time. Isaiah states it is at the start of the birth pains, which Jeremiah calls the Time of Jacob’s Trouble, which Yeshua refers to in Matthew 24. Isaiah also states the redeemed, both dead and living are hidden in their chambers. Zephaniah confirms the redeemed are hidden. Yeshua in John 14 says those chambers are in the Father’s house. And Enoch and Zechariah state that at His return He comes with His saints.

Great. Now you have to support your assertion from the OT, as exampled by the Bereans.

It would seem so.

I am in agreement with the explanation given in the Book of Enoch... that one of the purposes of the removal before or at the start of the period is to be a witness to the people of the earth and will move many to repentance. It is non canonical book, but it supports the idea that every now and then even a blind squirrel will find a nut. Many folks will be gone. Not going to be able to hide that fact. People will want an explanation. Satan has worked overtime setting up an alternative explanation that will deceive many. If it were a bogus concept, Satan wouldn’t waste a moment on it. You assume there is no one among the Hebrew people that has some familiarity with the Gospel. What of the 144,000 of the Hebrew tribes that obviously come to faith and are sealed after the period starts and quite a bit before They actually see Him? An army of Apostle Pauls testifying of the truth of Yeshua and no one can stop them.

Yes, the martyrs of seal 5 are redeemed, but so were the saints of the OT. Doesn't make either of them the specific Body of Messiah that was conceived in Acts 2. While these all may constitute the "assembly" of redeemed, not all constitute that unique identity of being the Body of Messiah. Just like many other examples of groups and identities in the spiritual realm. There Cherebim, Seraphim, Angels (messengers), etc. All are part of the counsel of Yahweh, but they are not all equal in position. Yes it is. Hosea 5:14-15 (NKJV) For I will be like a lion to Ephraim, And like a young lion to the house of Judah. I, even I, will tear them and go away; I will take them away, and no one shall rescue. 15 I will return again to My place Till they acknowledge their offense. Then they will seek My face; In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me." And Yeshua affirms this in Matthew 23.... Matthew 23:37-39 (NKJV) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'"

So you are going to base an entire eschatological paradigm on the absence of the mention of Yeshua specifically in the first glance by John? Revelation 4:2-3 (NKJV) Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald. You are aware aren't you that there is no Greek words used for those red highlighted ones, right? They are the interpreters commentary on the passage. You are basing a eschatological theology on what an interpreter implied the text as saying. So using your analysis of Jesus not specifically mentioned, applying the absence of mention of a person specifically, and since there is no mention of the Father specifically or even God in general in the original Greek, we can then assume that we have no clue who was sitting on the throne. If you do a study of Satan before he fell, he was described in similar manner regarding precious stones and such. Of course it was the Lord, but recall, the Lord is Triune. The One Lord is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And Isaiah said of Yeshua.... Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV) For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. So it very well could be that Yeshua (Jesus) was there, but only seen by John in His divine nature. Only later to be seen as the Lamb. Both of which are apt descriptions of Yeshua. Yeshua is sure not described as "the Lamb" when He returns to take over. Isaiah 63:1-4 (NKJV) Who is this who comes from Edom, With dyed garments from Bozrah, This One who is glorious in His apparel, Traveling in the greatness of His strength?— "I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save." 2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress? 3 "I have trodden the winepress alone, And from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, And trampled them in My fury; Their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, And I have stained all My robes. 4 For the day of vengeance is in My heart, And the year of My redeemed has come. Your analysis is extremely weak. One cannot make a legitimate case on the perceived absence of evidence. Just because Yeshua (Jesus) is not mentioned specifically does not mean He wasn't there. Yet the passage starts out as saying "after this" which grammatically would mean after what preceded it, which was the churches. And the only reference to 24 in scripture preceding this passage is in 1 Chronicles 24 where David divides up the priests into 24 groups. Peter (1 Peter 2:9) calls the redeemed that make up the Body of Messiah, a royal priesthood. And these 24 elders claim they are kings and priests (royal priesthood) in Chapter 5.... in both the TR and Vulgate. So while you base a timeline theology on what you perceive is the lack of evidence, I have shown a more reasoned theology based on scripture evidence relying on sound hermeneutic principles. And since that is what anyone can test, what you think you might have been told by the Lord is subjective and does not follow the prescription by Paul to test any idea. And the firm test is scripture. So, I cannot accept your analysis.

Well, maybe. But Yeshua went over it long before you showed up, and did so after Antiochus did his thing, so Yeshua seemed to think it applied to the time of the end. And it certainly doesn't apply to the Romans, as they stopped the daily sacrifices, but they did not put the Abomination of Desolation in the Temple. They destroyed the temple getting after the gold. Matthew 24:15 (NKJV) "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), And that is mentioned in Daniel 11:31 as well as Daniel 12:11. Both within the same context of describing details of that. The key tie in being Daniel 12:1 showing the continuation of the subject.... Daniel 12:1 (NKJV) "At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. "At that time" refers to the time being described that preceded that statement. Basic grammar. So the two chapters are inextricably linked as one. And I know it should be understood by all of us, but it seems not to be so it bears worth repeating.... when Daniel wrote his book, he did not include chapter and verse divisions. They came much later. And the same descriptions of things continues into Chapter 12, which continues on regarding the end time period, breaking it down. Chapters 11 and 12 are unified. And also bears repeating, many prophecies have dual fulfillments. Prophecy is pattern as well as fulfillment. And the descriptions in Daniel 11-12 mirror descriptions of the son of perdition / antichrist character in the NT. So... we have gone over it again. And Yeshua makes the case that it applies to the end and not just to Antiochus. So let's see... should I believe your analysis or Yeshua's...... no brainer. I will take Yeshua's analysis. While not a master, I do understand most of the basic concepts to Bible prophecy. And I know how to apply proper hermeneutics to what I am reading, which is the key to getting things in their proper order.

Zechariah, John the Baptist's father, was of the 8th priestly division established by King David in 1 Chronicles 24.... Aviyah. He would have been serving his 1st period in the temple around June of the year. That is when he was told by Gabriel that he and Elishavah would have a son who would prepare the way of the Lord. Fast forward..... After Gabriel had told Mariam that she would bear the Messiah, and Elishavah was in her 6th month So Miriam got the notice from Gabriel roughly the time of Hanukah, the festival of lights, Yeshua will be the light of the world. This would be roughly December. Elishavah remained in seclusion for 5 months until Miriam went to see her in her 6th month after Miriam had been told by Gabriel she would bear the Messiah. Miriam stays with Elishavah for 3 months.... about the time of JB's birth. That would have been roughly the Passover. JB came in the spirit and power of Elijah according Yeshua. To this very day, Hebrew households will set an extra chair and place setting for Elijah during the Passover, whom they expect will precede the Messiah. They are right, they just happened to miss it when it happened. Fast forward 9 months and it is likely that Yeshua was born roughly the time of feast of Tabernacles. September. The Lord has come to tabernacle among us. Also, it is one of the feasts that all Hebrews were required to be present in the temple area. The Romans took advantage of that mandatory requirement to do the taxation thing at the same time. So this is why Yosef and Miriam were in Beit lechem which is only a few miles from the temple. The time of Yeshua's birth has always been there in the Book of Luke. Just so many fail to realize the time of Zechariah serving in the temple because they fail to remember that David divided the priests. And Luke tells us what division Zechariah is in. The scripture gives us all the info we need to determine the period of year of Yeshua (Jesus) birth. No need to speculate.

Yeah, I did factor in some detail. And I would prefer to work my way forward and not work my way back. It is always best to go to grade school before heading off to college. 1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV ) 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; Revelation 5:9-10 (NKJV) "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth. And if one had already read the Bible in order instead of reading it from the back to the front and trying to make it fit some preconceived idea, the only reference to a group of 24 in scripture is when David divided the priesthood in 1 Chronicles 24. And using the scripture hermeneutic principle of "law of first mention" and "expositional constancy", the application of 1 Chronicles 24 to the 24 Elders of Revelation 4-5 which call themselves "kings and priests" is referring to the redeemed body of Messiah, there before the scroll what handed to Yeshua. Now given the churches are talked about in Revelation 2-3, and at the time John wrote those letters, that was the present to him. "the things which are". And the 24 elders being the redeemed Body of Messiah and a royal priesthood per Peter which is the same thing as saying "kings and priests" in Revelation 5. It justifies the outline I gave from Revelation 1:19. From chapter 4 onward is the things that will take place after the churches of Revelation 2-3. So that places the scroll and seals yet future. Where history comes in is that in the order those present day churches of John's time are laid out, the main characteristics of the individual churches would suggest the layout is also an outline of church history. Any other order and it would not be the case. And just like there were redeemed from the OT and some were martyred, especially some prophets, that does not make them the unique redeemed body of Messiah that constitutes the royal priesthood that Peter wrote about nor the 24 Elders of Revelation 4-5. Likewise, those that come to faith as a result of the redeemed being caught away, which is what the non canonical book of Enoch refers to as one of the primary reasons for the early removal... to drive those on the earth to repent, Those martyrs of 5th seal are not those of the unique body of Messiah that was removed earlier. They are those who, as a result of the wake up alarm of experiencing the redeemed be removed earlier, come to faith and pay the price for that. So to equate the seals to covering the last 2000 years is allegorical and not in keeping with a principled application of scripture hermeneutics. No matter what you think you might have been personally told.

That sounds good until one looks at how the bible views leaven (yeast). And leaven usually has a negative connotation. There could be a reference, but I have never seen one in scripture that shows leaven in a good light. To all of a sudden make it look like a great thing to be valued when the rest of the bible puts a negative spin on it really violates sound scripture hermeneutics.

Now you are getting ridiculous. Is what your wife makes the 3 measures of meal of the fellowship offering for the temple? hardly. And it wouldn't mean anything anyway as there is no temple to offer it at. But when the temple was around, 3 measures of meal was the fellowship offering and if it was found out that the one offering it introduced leaven into it, that was a very serious violation. Ask any Rabbinical scholar. Why is it that at Passover, the father of the house will make sure all leaven is out of the house? And what does he say when he finds the little bit of leaven that had been strategically hidden, usually by a child as a teaching moment? As he brushes the leaven into the cloth for it to be disposed of (usually burned), he states about revealing sin that had been hidden in his home and removing it from the household. Leaven is almost always associated with sin and corruption. But it still stands. Jezebel was the one that really introduced corruption, baal worship, and other nonsense into Israel. It is the name referenced in Revelation in the letter to Thyatira. In scripture, in tradition, in Rabbinical scholarship, in the Qumran scrolls, in most every theological college, Jezebel is associated with corruption. And that is how the name is used in Revelation. It is not unreasonable to associate the "woman" introducing leaven into 3 measure of meal (fellowship offering) is introducing corruption into the kingdom in like manner as in Israel and in Thyatira. And it is that corruption that grows in the kingdom over the 1000 year rule of Messiah, that when Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years, he is able to foment one more final major rebellion against Messiah. Corruption and sin has permeated the entire kingdom. Revelation 20 / Psalms 2. It also explains why Yeshua has to rule with a rod of iron. That implies He will lay the heavy hand down on those who get out of line in the kingdom. In Zechariah 14, it states that during that time of the Messianic Kingdom, those that do not follow the requirement of observing the Feast of Tabernacles will have rain withheld from their land. Does that sound like some sort of perfect kumbaya let's all hold hands and celebrate thing going on in the kingdom?

I would disagree. It is a parable of the church. Oysters are non kosher in Hebrew culture. But it is thru them that we get pearls. And how is a pearl started... by introducing an irritant into the oyster. Then the pearl grows by the oyster piling on an accretion over time covering the grain of sand or whatever that started the irritant. Later, the pearl is removed and it becomes an item of adornment. The church is predominantly gentile.... non kosher. It started small, as an irritant in the world. It grows in the world like a pearl in the oyster. Later, the church (pearl) is removed and becomes an item of adornment for the Messiah. The parable of the pearl is a magnificent imagery of the church and the Messiah. The merchant in the parable is the Messiah. The Messiah gave all to redeem the church (pearl) to Himself.

It is using the hermeneutics principal of Law of First Mention combined with the principle of Expositional Constancy. Birds in scripture mostly are not seen as a good thing. For instance when Abraham cut up the animals at the instruction of the Lord to make the covenant. Abraham had to drive the birds away. The scripture makes the connection. It is reasonable to assume that since Yeshua was speaking to a Hebrew audience and He had already associated the birds in the previous parable of the Sower with the evil ones. He expected them to make the connection also. We tend to get things all goofed up when we look at scripture from our preconceived western mindset. But what is going on there.... Matthew 13:33 (NKJV) Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened." A woman is hiding leaven in 3 measures of meal. Since the day of Abraham meeting with the Lord at Mamre, 3 measures of meal was considered the fellowship offering in both Hebrew and Arab cultures. It was the fellowship offering at the temple and was to be unleavened. To hide leaven in that is a capital crime in the temple days. And a woman doing it, it reminded me of the Jezebel references in ancient Israel and in the letter to the church at Thyatira in Revelation. Both references talking of introducing corruption into things. And Yeshua associates leaven with sin in the form of pride and error in ..... Matthew 16:6 (NKJV) Then Jesus said to them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees The kingdom of heaven arrives on earth when Messiah takes control and rules for 1000 years. During that time, people will be born that many will not be so inclined to favor the rule of Messiah over them. And later, Satan is able to foment one last rebellion on the earth when he is released at the end of the 1000 years. To foment a major rebellion, then discontent and a desire to throw off the rule of Messiah had to have grown throughout the kingdom over that 1000 years. The pattern is there. So I am not convince that you are right that I am reading the parables wrong. I really hadn't delved into this that much until I listened to a analysis from a Messianic Jew, Albert Israeli, on the topic many years ago and started looking at the texts in light of the rest of scripture.

I am not sure what is so difficult by some to realize that the Mosaic Torah applies to only Jews. Even Jewish believers. It was made with the Hebrew people, not gentiles. But gentile believers are under the Noachide laws of Genesis 9. Unless one actually becomes a proselyte and places themselves under the Mosaic Covenant, thereby becoming Jew, they never have been required to observe the Mosaic Law. James and Paul affirmed that in Acts. All believers are redeemed thru the same Messiah, and in the Body there is neither Jew nor Gentile spiritually, but that does not mean a gentile who becomes a believer then falls under the Mosaic Law. They still remain under the Noachide Law. This was true of gentile "God fearers" in ancient Israel and in Yeshua's day and it is still true today per James and Paul. Paul tells Jews who come to Messiah not to give up their heritage, and he tells gentiles coming to Messiah to not become Jews. But all are of one body in Messiah. It doesn't get any simpler. So, as a gentile believer, I still get to eat oysters and have a bacon cheese burger. As long as any meat is killed properly, it is allowed. And I know this will chap some people, but that also includes observance of Shabbat. I am not required to do so. I may choose to and that would not be a problem, but I am not required to. That was given to Israel.

There is the Mosaic Covenant "Law" that is prescribed for the Hebrew people. Even Paul stuck by it as exampled in Acts 21 when James has him go sacrifice at the temple for the Nazarite vow. But the same council headed by James affirmed that the gentiles in Messiah were still only bound by the Noachide Laws. That is the schism that developed early on. Most of the early church was Jewish. Tradition was that for a gentile to join the congregation of Israel, they had to become a proselyte and place themselves under the Mosaic Torah. They would become Jews at that point. But that fact is, one could still be what is called a "righteous gentile" or "God fearer" and still remain under the Noachide laws. And that is in keeping with the Mosaic Law of the Torah. Gentiles are not required, nor are they allowed to keep the Torah of Moshe unless they became proselytes and placed themselves under the Mosaic Covenant, becoming Jewish. Even in ancient Israel, there was a Noachide court that sat at the gate of a city and judged violations of the Noachide Law in Israel by gentiles. The Hebrew Roots movement is great when it comes to seeing Yeshua in the Moedim and other aspects of the Torah. Where it can go out of bounds is when it prescribes that gentiles who become believers must adhere to the Mosaic Torah.

Except that Revelation is 404 verses that have over 800 OT references. Using the scripture hermeneutic principles of Law of First Mention and Expositional Constancy, it is not hard at all to see what the imagery of Revelation is. Only when one discounts the OT do they start to stumble around in the dark trying to figure out the imagery.

You are assuming a gap between the 69th week (Yeshua's crucifixion) and the destruction of the temple in 70AD. The very same thing that Preterists accuse futurists of. The weeks are contiguous or they are not. And it is obvious they are not contiguous so then we can only determine the interval between the 69th and 70th week from the rest of scripture. But the Abomination of Desolation was never set up in the Holy Place (Holy of Holies), as per Yeshua, before it was destroyed in 70AD. And given that Revelation was written long after the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, and is well confirmed by many archeologists and early church writers, there is no way that Revelation was fulfilled in 70AD. I look around and I still don't see a new heaven and new earth let alone evidence that 1/2 of the worlds population (1/4 and 1/3 at a time) was killed off in a relatively short period of time. Neither back then or even in WW II. To even remotely arrive at a Preterist conclusion requires allegorizing the scripture to extremes to be almost unrecognizable. Just like a ammillenial view has to do. Though on that count, there is not much difference between those positions. Virtually all the early church writers were unequivocally pre-millennial. You know, the guys who actually knew the Apostles or had close association with those who did know the apostles. Abherent eschatology did not start getting a foot hold till the Alexandrian Theology school started kicking its stuff into the mix. Everything from Gnostic philosophy to allegorization of scripture.

You must have missed Daniel 11:29 onward, which specifically ties into Matthew 24, Daniel 9 and many other yet future passages together. And it is because there has been no temple since 70AD, that there has been no daily sacrifice. Yet, In Daniel 11:31 it says this character will take away the daily sacrifice and put up the Abomination of Desolation in its place. The latter did not occur in 70AD so it is yet future. There has to be a temple in place for that to occur once again. Folks are not authorized to pile a bunch of stones in their back yard and sacrifice without being in violation of the the covenant. The Law is specific. Daniel assumes that those familiar with the Covenant (Daniel's people - who this section is referring to) know these things so it is not necessary for the text to start out all over again explaining things about the temple and literally mentioning it. The scripture many times assumes the reader already knows certain details. So it is not a "notable omission". Daniel assumes the reader is not a newbie to these things. Folks should have already gone to grammar school (scripturally) by reading about the temple and Israel prior to the Babylonian Exile and the time Daniel is writing this.

They were even called the congregation in Egypt (Genesis 12). But Egyptians were not part of it. It is forbidden either before the Sinai Covenant or after for anyone not under the covenant to do the passover which is the first of the Moedim to be established as part of the Covenant. Also, as anyone who has read of the account from Egypt onward, not everyone in Israel was redeemed / saved whereas the only way to be part of the ekklesia of Messiah is to be redeemed/saved. Yet again, they are not the same entity. David even talks about a congregation of the wicked. Well since they are called an ekklesia also, does that mean the purposefully wicked / unredeemed are partakers in Messiah like the present day ekklesia of the redeemed in Messiah? It is in psalm 22 and Yeshua speaking from the cross. One of the greatest visuals of the crucifixion from His perspective. If one is going to equate the ekklesia of the Messiah with the ekklesia of Israel, then one has to take the curses as well as the promises. Ahhh, but no one wants the curses so those never seem to get mentioned by those that want to now claim the ekklesia of Messiah is the same as the ekklesia of Israel. They will stumble all over themselves like throwing a ham bone into a room with a pack of pit bull dogs claiming the promises of Israel and now how the ekklesia of Messiah is no different, but fail to realize there are curses that also go along with that Israel package. And those are corporate curses, not just individual. When Israel in general deviated from God, the entire nation suffered, even those who remained faithful. They were taken captive and taken out of the land of the promise. And in 2000 years, I see no historical evidence that the ekklesia of Messiah en masse has been cursed and kept from its promise like is outlined in Leviticus 26. Yet there are many examples in history where the "church" collectively deserved it. There is a physical people of the Lord (Jacob/Israel) that makes up the ekklesia of Israel is to reside in the specific geographical property on the earth that the Lord claims for Himself, even during the Millennial Kingdom. The ekklesia of Messiah inherits the entire earth after Messiah reclaims the title deed for the earth from the evil ones. After the fall, the nations were divided based on the number of their Gods (elohim) and the Lord established a portion of the land of the earth as His (Deuteronomy 32). In Daniel, we see glimpses of that when an angel of Yahweh has to fight with the entity behind Persia and later the entity behind Greece. It is why the whole world has a problem with that same piece of land to this day. It is the only geographical portion of the earth that is not under the ownership of Satan. One needs to get a handle on what is going on behind the scenes to have a firmer grasp on what we can see. And while both the ekklesia of Israel and the ekklesia of Messiah is a set apart people to Yahweh, they are distinct from each other in composition, purpose, and destiny.

Only in some passages. While some might hold the idea that redemption is yet future as it only applies to the resurrection, I am confident that I am already redeemed, as the following shows..... Galatians 3:13 (NKJV) Christ has redeemed [past tense] us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), Colossians 1:13-14 (NKJV) He has delivered us [past tense] from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption [present tense] through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. Ephesians 1:7 (NKJV) In Him we have redemption [present tense] through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace Romans 8:23 (NKJV) Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. [future tense] We have been redeemed, we are redeemed, and we will be redeemed. Think on an inter dimensional level. I Agree, it is context. And back to Hebrews 11 which started this dialogue, the context is faith unto redemption. Resurrection is not referred to or implied in the entire chapter. And one has to be redeemed already thru faith in Messiah before their body can be redeemed. It is not a all in one same occurrence as you implied by equating resurrection with redemption in your earlier post I responded to.

Sure, in the LXX it uses Ekklesia in the OT just like the NT, but they are different groups. The ekklesia of Jacob/Israel is not the same group as the ekklesia of Messiah, where in the latter classifications break down so that, spiritually, there is neither Jew or Gentile. In the OT ekklesia, if a gentile wanted to be part of that ekklesia they had to become a proselyte, embrace and adhere to the Mosaic Covenant, be circumcised and going thru the rituals to becoming technically a Jew. There was no distinct righteous ekklesia of the gentiles, nor a unified ekklesia of Jews and gentiles like in the present age under Messiah. It is by not knowing this reality that leads to confusing the two groups. It is what caused the confusion in Acts that James and Paul had to address. Most of the early church was Jewish. As gentiles started coming in, they were being told they had to go thru the OT requirements of being a proselyte to join the ekklesia. Paul argued against that and James ruled at the Council of Jerusalem that gentiles did not have to be proselytes and come under the Mosaic Covenant and become Jews. Thereby confirming that the ekklesia of Messiah was a new and unique ekklesia compared to the OT use of ekklesia that came to be the wording in the LXX 4 centuries later.