Israel in Prophesy (still future vs 1948)

[AandW_Rootbeer]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

How is that any different than what I just said. You said Matthew 24 speaks of two different tribs. I have asked how you arrived at that conclusion. You say, "And it answers itself explaining Christ Returns <immediately after> Event!" Yes, he returns after the event. One event. Then his return. Not two events. Everything ewlse in that post is irrelevant. You and I are discussing why people digress and here you are digressing. You have said people digress because it is a "diversion move," or they are dodging when cornered or because it is a longer way to get to their point. 

 

You said MATTHEW 24 speaks of two tribulation. I'm not interest in any other passage or any other topic. I am interest and have asked a handful of times how you arrive at two different tribulations in MATTHEW 24! 

 

You can say, "Passage X and passage Y tell us Matthew 24 is speaking of two different tribulations," but that is NOT what you said originally. You said Mattew 24 speaks of two tribs. 

How did you get there using Matthew 24 alone?

I got there because Christ said after Great Tribulation, Immediately After, watch for the signs of His appearance because He Returns soon.

 

The event in 70 A.D. happened and no <Christ said after Great Tribulation, Immediately After, watch for the signs of His appearance because He Returns soon> had happened.

 

But taking Christ's words <Immediately (After) Tribulation> He Returns, shows me this Verse speaks of 2 Events, because 70 A.D. happened and no Second Coming of Christ.

 

But Christ reveals there is A EVENT where Immediately After, He Returns.

 

So, if 70 A.D. is a tribulation, then so is the Wrath of God, but when this ENDS, Christ Returns, unlike Him not returning in 70 A.D.!

Edited August 3, 2021 by AandW_Rootbeer

[dad2]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

According to Paul, they do. 

 

No. Paul knows that unsaved people do not have a new heart. 

Israel will be saved and therefore have a new heart also one day. When? 

Jeremiah 31:33

 

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord , I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people

[dad2]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

I can see my time is being wasted. 

 

I never said, "The Bible is wrong," and if I were to ask you to prove me ever saying any such thing no such evidence would ever be presented so everyone reading that rhetorical question knows this is not a problem on my end. What I did say is the Jews got it wrong, and I stand by those words having already proved from scripture that was the case. One of the ost commonly occurring facts of the gospels is Jesus saying, "You have heard it said                       , but I say,                                             ," and then he proceeds to correct their erroneous understanding. That happens throughout the gospels. Paul too spends much of his epistolary correcting the Jewish understanding and correctly revealing God's word to the converts to Christ, both Jew and Gentile, from national Israel and outside of it. That is what I posted. 

So the gross misrepresentation I think the Bible is wrong is an indication its time for me to take my leave. It's not only a straw man but it's a vain attempt to shift the onus away from the op and on to me even though..... I have yet to assert any "doctrine," invented or not. 

Straw man
Shifting onus
Red herring

Psalm 110:1 clearly states otherwise, and the failure to reconcile all scripture with verses stating he rules from his eternal throne in heaven is the problem to be solved. How hard would it have been to post a quote from scripture plainly stating Jesus sits on an earthly, man-made chair in Jerusalem? Twenty-four pages of posts and no such scripture is in evidence. Psalm 110:1 is in evidence and the response is another rhetorical question that doesn't engage the facts of scripture or further the discussion one bit. 

I completely agree with the statement this should need no explanation for anyone familiar with prophesy because Revelation tells us about the "woman in travail." 

Revelation 12:1-6
"A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;  and she was with child; and she *cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.  Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.  And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.  And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.  Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days."

There are two prevailing interpretations of this passage. The first is that the woman is Israel and the child is the Messiah, and the second is the woman is Mary and the child is Jesus, the Messiah, the anointed one of God. In both interpretations the salient fact is the woman in distress has already come and gone by the time the relevant events described throughout the book of Revelation have transpired. The woman in distress was future-tense to Jeremiah's original readers, present-tense to John's original readers, and past-tense to us. 

Not everything in the book of Revelation is in John's future! Very early on in the book the book itself states, "Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things" (Rev. 1:19). 

1. Things John has seen (not things he will see; things he has already seen), 
2. Things that currently are existing, 
3. Things that will take place after that which he has seen and the things that currently exist. 

That is what verse 19 actually states. I'm not adding anything to what is stated and I am not subtracting anything from what is stated, either. I most certainly am not asserting some "doctrine." Scripture states what it states and what it states is a woman in distress occurred in Johns' Revelation. 

Jeremiah 30 has come to pass according to Revelation 1:19.  Misrepresenting my post(s), attempting to shift the onus, arguing red herrings, rhetorical questions, and false accusations of posting doctrine don't help you make your case, dad2. I could be completely wrong but that doesn't mean your case has been proven.

 

The geo-political nation-state Israel has not been restored. It's not going to be restored. The Israel of God is Christ crucified and resurrected and his body f royal priests. Not all Israel is Israel and the Israel of God is those who live by faith. In that regard there is no separation between Israel and the Church; the qahal and the ecclesia are synonymous; the assembly is not replaced by those called out. We, the Gentile converts to Christ have been grafted into the already-existing "tree" that is Israel. I can point to verse in scripture that clearly state these things and I can do so without having to add to or subtract from any of those passages or assert extra-biblical doctrines. 

In order for what you believe to be true then either the current state of Israel will have to be so radically altered that the current state no longer exists or it will have to be discarded and replaced and neither are likely to occur within our lifetime. Furthermore, there isn't any scripture for God introducing a second Israel that He latter discards and replaces with a third Israel. 

The geo-political nation-state of Israel named after Isaac's monogene son was always a foreshadowing of Jesus, the monogene sarx egentos. 

 

Genesis 32:27-28
"So he said to him, 'What is your name?' And he said, 'Jacob.'  He said, 'Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.'"

Exodus 4:22
"Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, 'Israel is My son, My firstborn.'"

Hosea 11:1
"When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son." 

Matthew 2:14-15
"So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt.  He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'"

 

Matthew, not me, stated the Hosea prophesy was fulfilled with the birth of Christ in the New Testament era. Matthew, not me, drew that connection and explained that Old Testament prophesy to his gospel era readers. No additions to scripture. No subtractions from scripture. No extra-biblical doctrines being asserted. Just the plain word of God read as written, plainly stated. Jesus is Israel and we, those who believe in the resurrected son of God are God's holy nation. 

 

So..... 

 

....because this conversation is becoming increasingly less about the statement made in the p and more and more about your personal perceptions of me and my posts I'll be moving on. I have said my piece. I'll let you have the last word. 

I gave a synopsis of the chapter you cite in Jer showing beyond any doubt it has to be in the future. You say you have no doctrine yet you try to place these things in the past. What would you call that?.

Edited August 3, 2021 by dad2

[dad2]

5 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yep. I completely agree. The fact remains Paul was in fact writing of God having given Israel and the Gentile converts to Christ a new heart. You're not denying God having provided both Jew and Gentile new hearts are you?

Of course we have new hearts when we get saved. That has what to do with Israel not having been brought back by God to the land in 1948? 

 

Since you say you are fleeing, let's summarize.

 

You apparently do not believe that the bowl judgments mean what they say.

You think the tribulation was in 70AD or some confused such thing

You do not believe the Tribulation lasts 3 1/2 years and is set off by the placing of the abomination of desolation

You think all the judgments listed in Revelation are history

 

Let me know if there is something not right there, or something we missed. Ha

 

[Alive]

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

More baloney.

This is not required to make your points.

Please be nice.

[dad2]

1 hour ago, Alive said:

This is not required to make your points.

Please be nice.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by dad2

[DeighAnn]

How does the kingdom and king being rejected figure into the 'language' used.  

In Matthew, John the Baptist was proclaiming the kingdom of God is coming.  

HAD the King BEEN ACCEPTED (again whether or not that is possible is besides the point as it isn't what WE know and understand but what God does and we know it was being proclaimed)  THEN THE LAST DAY WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND THE END TIMES WOULD HAVE BEEN NEAR.  

SO CHRIST SPOKE AS SUCH ESPECIALLY IN MATT AND MARK the gospels of the proclamations. 

NOT so much in LUKE and JOHN because those are the gospels of the rejection. 


REMEMBERING THAT

the NEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN NEAR

THE TRIB WOULD HAVE COME UPON THAT GENERATION

ALL THE THINGS THAT DIDN'T TAKE PLACE THEN BECAUSE OF THE REJECTION STILL MUST TAKE PLACE AT 'THE END'

DO NOT let anyone pin you down with specific questions that are truth IN THE LIGHT OF ONE SERIES OF EVENTS TAKING PLACE BUT ARE NOT IN THE EVENT OF OTHERS because they will then ALWAYS go back to that one point to PROVE a bunch of others and when THE FOUNDATION IS NOT ON SOLID GROUND, nothing built upon it will be either. 

THESE are the REASONS we NEVER let the words of man LEAD US.  We have GODS WORDS And the leading of the Holy Spirit and it always goes back to THE VERY FIRST LESSON.  

Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

IT SO SOUNDS like truth,  IT SO SOUNDS like what is written,  It so sounds EVER SO LOGICAL. 

but it isn't because THE WHOLE TRUTH IS NOT BEING GIVEN.  Just the one PART THAT fits with what ROAD they wish to take you down.  

THE WHOLE WORLD did not have tribulation in 70AD, just the JEWS.  

NO one was deceived by any one or anything taking place.   

and IT DIDN'T END. 

WE can't throw out 'near' but we can throw out 1000 years????  What kind of logic is that.  One not specific must be held so and one very specific must not be taken so.  WHAT DOES THAT TELL US???

Just some thoughts to ponder...  D
 

 

[AandW_Rootbeer]

5 hours ago, Josheb said:

That's still only one tribulation. 

Forget about 70 AD. I'm not asking about 70 AD. I'm asking you how you get two tribulations out of Matthew 24. You're assuming 70AD is a tribulation and then some other tribulation is yet to occur and I am asking how you reach that conclusion based on Matthew 24 because you said there were two tribulations in Matthew 24. 

 

Where is that stated? 

It is not! 

Since two tribulations are not stated, how then do you reach the conclusion there are two tribs?

 

Since the conversation is eroding as evidenced by the op's turn toward attack in abdication of his own responsibility to prove his own position and I'm having to ask you the same question over and over this will be my last inquiry. If I don't read an exegetical explanation for how Matthew 24 teaches to separate and distinct tribulations I'll be moving on, letting the posts speak for themselves. 

 

If you and I stick solely to the text of Matthew 24, how do you reach the conclusion two tribulations are mentioned when the text could much easier be read to speak of a series of events leading to a single tribulation, especially since the text itself states, "THE tribulation," every time the tribulation is mentioned? 

Technically speaking here, I am not a fan of applying what happened in 70 A.D. as a Tribulation.   It was Daniel's Fulfillment Prophecy of the AoD and Ending of Daily Sacrifice.   I/E it was God's Plan to move on from living in a Temple made of stone to a Temple designed to be more intimate in its dwelling.

 

I honestly believe Christ Returns after Great Tribulation, which means there is only one Tribulation spoken about.   But I am not opposed if some call 70 A.D. a Tribulation.   When they do, I offer the 2 Tribulation Theory, until they understand 70 A.D. was not the Tribulation that ends and Christ returns the Second Time.  And we know that never happened in 70 A.D.   So Christ's reference to Tribulation is 100% future beyond 70 A.D.

 

But, I will add, knowing Christ was speaking two-fold, of two events, with one of them He returns afterwards.  I could buy, if one day, we do find out it meant dual tribulations.   But I am more than ok with 70 A.D. being the fulfillment of Daniel, and the Tribulation Christ Returns afterwords, is speaking about our lifetimes or beyond.

 

 

[abcdef]

On 7/28/2021 at 11:26 PM, dad2 said:

I saw nothing in there that could relate to 1967.

The end of the gentile trampling/control over the city of Jerusalem ended in 1967.

Lk 21:24.

 

On 7/28/2021 at 11:26 PM, dad2 said:

  I did see in verse 22 this

 

²² For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

 

So unless you claim ALL was fulfilled already, that chapter does anything but help a claim that it was in 1967 (or any time in the past)

Is every prophecy ever made fulfilled in Lk 21:20-24? No.

Do the events in Lk 21:20-24 have to happen so that all prophecies will be fulfilled? Yes.

Do the events in Lk 21 have to happen so that all prophecies that relate to the event will be fulfilled? Yes.

It is ridiculous to think that Lk 21:20-24 fulfills every prophecy ever made. Is that what you think v 22 means? 

 

 

 

[abcdef]

On 8/3/2021 at 6:22 PM, AandW_Rootbeer said:

Technically speaking here, I am not a fan of applying what happened in 70 A.D. as a Tribulation.   It was Daniel's Fulfillment Prophecy of the AoD and Ending of Daily Sacrifice.   I/E it was God's Plan to move on from living in a Temple made of stone to a Temple designed to be more intimate in its dwelling.

 

I honestly believe Christ Returns after Great Tribulation, which means there is only one Tribulation spoken about.   But I am not opposed if some call 70 A.D. a Tribulation.   When they do, I offer the 2 Tribulation Theory, until they understand 70 A.D. was not the Tribulation that ends and Christ returns the Second Time.  And we know that never happened in 70 A.D.   So Christ's reference to Tribulation is 100% future beyond 70 A.D.

 

But, I will add, knowing Christ was speaking two-fold, of two events, with one of them He returns afterwards.  I could buy, if one day, we do find out it meant dual tribulations.   But I am more than ok with 70 A.D. being the fulfillment of Daniel, and the Tribulation Christ Returns afterwords, is speaking about our lifetimes or beyond.

 

There was trouble/ tribulation when Rome invaded Israel in 63 BC, when the iron of the statue in Dan. 2 began.

There was trouble/tribulation before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

There was trouble/tribulation during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

And there was great trouble/tribulation after Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, until Jerusalem was restored in 1967.

--

The word "tribulation" is just a translation of the word "trouble".