Any see current middle east events fulfilling any Prophesy ?

[Aaron]

And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee……
…..for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Has that happened? Have they returned unto the Lord? Are they obeying His voice? What you're observing about Israel can't be the fulfillment of a promise if the conditions of said promise haven't been met.

By all counts Deut. 30 is what is being talked about in Neh. 1
These promises mentioned by Moses predate the law and the temple/tabernacle.

And, by all counts, the thought in Deut. 30 begins at the end of Deut. 29

Deuteronomy 29:25-29 KJV - Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.

The deed to the land was rendered at Sinai. And their occupation is conditional upon their faithfulness to, and the viability of that covenant.

And in the new heaven and the new earth there is a new Jerusalem.

The New Jerusalem is the Church. I can't imagine how this can be missed when it's so clearly spelled out in Paul's letters.

Abraham had two sons, one from Hagar, a slave, and one from Sarah, a free woman. Hagar represents the old testament and old Jerusalem. And her children represent the Jews. There is nothing supernatural about their birth. They're children of Abraham according to the flesh, like Ishmael was. And like Ishmael, are in bondage.

Sarah represents the New Testament and the New Jerusalem. Her children represent the Christians. Their birth was supernatural, and are children according to the Promise, like Isaac was. And like Isaac, we are freeborn. Christians are the promised seed.

So what does the Scripture say? Banish the slave and her child, because slaves will not share in the inheritance with free men. Gal 4.

Hebrews 12:18, 22-24 - For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, ... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

The temple is important but there is more than that.

The Temple is everything. Shiloh was a longtime location of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant. That's what God meant when He said he set his name there at one time.

When the Ark was brought to the Temple, God put His name there. 1 Kings 9:3.

It 's the blessings of the priests that puts God's name on His people. Num. 6:27

It's the Temple that sanctifies a location. Not the other way around. It's the priesthood that sanctifies a people.

God built Himself a new Temple, out of living stones, and He has set His name there.

There's only one name now for that mountain in Jerusalem...Ichabod, thy glory hath departed.

 

[Aaron]

But you know what predates the law, and even the promises to Abraham? The priesthood of Melchizedek. Now, consider how great this man, Melchizedek, was to whom Abraham paid tithes, and from whom he received a blessing. And without question, the one who has the power to give blessings is greater than the one receiving them, even if he was already standing in covenant relationship with God.

And Christ's Priesthood is of that order.

It was always God's will that His Son offer himself as a sacrifice for sin in the temple of His body. His Son is the eternal great high priest. The Levitical priesthood was a temporary arrangement to teach us about the nature of Christ's offering. Now that Christ has been ordained, and made His offering, and taken His place at the right hand of the Father as King, that old, faulty, and ineffectual priesthood is cancelled. Sinai is gone.

The covenant being cancelled, the deed to the land has been cancelled.

 

[Ben1445]

But you know what predates the law, and even the promises to Abraham? The priesthood of Melchizedek.

No promises were made to Melchizedek.

Now, consider how great this man, Melchizedek, was to whom Abraham paid tithes, and from whom he received a blessing. And without question, the one who has the power to give blessings is greater than the one receiving them, even if he was already standing in covenant relationship with God.

Melchizedek is not the holder of any covenant. He has no lineage. He blessed Abraham. He is a type of Christ.
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;

And Christ's Priesthood is of that order.

Which doesn’t make God a liar and take bake His promise.

It was always God's will that His Son offer himself as a sacrifice for sin in the temple of His body. His Son is the eternal great high priest. The Levitical priesthood was a temporary arrangement to teach us about the nature of Christ's offering. Now that Christ has been ordained, and made His offering, and taken His place at the right hand of the Father as King, that old, faulty, and ineffectual priesthood is cancelled. Sinai is gone.

Sinai is not in question. It is the promises to Abraham that Moses recognizes and does not deliver that you are trying to cancel.

The covenant being cancelled, the deed to the land has been cancelled.

Galatians 3:17
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
The promise is the Abrahamic covenant. The Law, Mosaic Covenant cannot make void the promises made to Abraham. The new covenant does not void the promises made to Abraham either.
There is no place in scripture that says that the deed has been canceled. It is only your anti-Jewish feelings that state this.


Paul didn’t cancel it. He warned people like you about your own high mindedness.

(Rom. 11) Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

 

[Ben1445]

Has that happened? Have they returned unto the Lord? Are they obeying His voice? What you're observing about Israel can't be the fulfillment of a promise if the conditions of said promise haven't been met.

Some are. I know some personally.

And, by all counts, the thought in Deut. 30 begins at the end of Deut. 29

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are well before Deut. 29.

Deuteronomy 29:25-29 KJV - Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.

The deed to the land was rendered at Sinai. And their occupation is conditional upon their faithfulness to, and the viability of that covenant.



The New Jerusalem is the Church. I can't imagine how this can be missed when it's so clearly spelled out in Paul's letters.

Abraham had two sons, one from Hagar, a slave, and one from Sarah, a free woman. Hagar represents the old testament and old Jerusalem. And her children represent the Jews. There is nothing supernatural about their birth. They're children of Abraham according to the flesh, like Ishmael was. And like Ishmael, are in bondage.

Sarah represents the New Testament and the New Jerusalem. Her children represent the Christians. Their birth was supernatural, and are children according to the Promise, like Isaac was. And like Isaac, we are freeborn. Christians are the promised seed.

So what does the Scripture say? Banish the slave and her child, because slaves will not share in the inheritance with free men. Gal 4.

The children of Abraham were God’s people before the law.
Your Galatians allegory is about the law and the promise of Jesus. (Isaac was the offering/ Jesus is the offering; Ishmael is of bondage the law is bondage.) Not the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel is not the Law. The law was given to the nation hundreds of years after God began their existence as a nation. The laws of your own country were written early in its existence. They were established within the first Twenty years. Were we on Israel’s timeline for laws, we would not get our laws for several hundred more years. These are not even close to the same thing. Yes one came through the other. Since the law relies on the people to have been delivered, the promises made to the people are not cancelled by the law that came later.

Hebrews 12:18, 22-24 - For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, ... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

God promised Abraham a land. Moses recognized that it was there in Israel. If he was wrong, God could have corrected his eschatology.

The Temple is everything. Shiloh was a longtime location of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant. That's what God meant when He said he set his name there at one time.

When the Ark was brought to the Temple, God put His name there. 1 Kings 9:3.

It 's the blessings of the priests that puts God's name on His people. Num. 6:27

It's the Temple that sanctifies a location. Not the other way around. It's the priesthood that sanctifies a people.

God built Himself a new Temple, out of living stones, and He has set His name there.

There's only one name now for that mountain in Jerusalem...Ichabod, thy glory hath departed.

The temple is not everything.
God didn’t send His Son for the temple. Jesus came for people.

 

[Aaron]

No promises were made to Melchizedek.

An oath was made to the Son, who came in the fashion of Melchizedek.

And Abraham and the Levites through him paid tithes to Melchizedek.

Again, the point being that order is a superior eternal order, the Levitical order being a weak and temporary copy.

 

[Aaron]

Sinai is not in question. It is the promises to Abraham that Moses recognizes and does not deliver that you are trying to cancel.

Of course it is. It is the condition by which the Circumcision may occupy the land.

You quoted that passage yourself.

 

[xlsdraw]

Has that happened? Have they returned unto the Lord? Are they obeying His voice? What you're observing about Israel can't be the fulfillment of a promise if the conditions of said promise haven't been met.



And, by all counts, the thought in Deut. 30 begins at the end of Deut. 29

Deuteronomy 29:25-29 KJV - Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.

The deed to the land was rendered at Sinai. And their occupation is conditional upon their faithfulness to, and the viability of that covenant.



The New Jerusalem is the Church. I can't imagine how this can be missed when it's so clearly spelled out in Paul's letters.

Abraham had two sons, one from Hagar, a slave, and one from Sarah, a free woman. Hagar represents the old testament and old Jerusalem. And her children represent the Jews. There is nothing supernatural about their birth. They're children of Abraham according to the flesh, like Ishmael was. And like Ishmael, are in bondage.

Sarah represents the New Testament and the New Jerusalem. Her children represent the Christians. Their birth was supernatural, and are children according to the Promise, like Isaac was. And like Isaac, we are freeborn. Christians are the promised seed.

So what does the Scripture say? Banish the slave and her child, because slaves will not share in the inheritance with free men. Gal 4.

Hebrews 12:18, 22-24 - For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, ... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.



The Temple is everything. Shiloh was a longtime location of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant. That's what God meant when He said he set his name there at one time.

When the Ark was brought to the Temple, God put His name there. 1 Kings 9:3.

It 's the blessings of the priests that puts God's name on His people. Num. 6:27

It's the Temple that sanctifies a location. Not the other way around. It's the priesthood that sanctifies a people.

God built Himself a new Temple, out of living stones, and He has set His name there.

There's only one name now for that mountain in Jerusalem...Ichabod, thy glory hath departed.

I see that you have torn Ezekiel and Zachariah out of your Bible. They don't fit your Replacement Theology narrative. A multitude of other verses from many books as well.

There's only one people that will build the Third Temple in Jerusalem according to the design of Ezekiel chapters 40 through 48. And that people is the seed of Israel.

Isaiah chapter 19 makes it crystal clear that Egypt, Assyria, and Israel WILL serve the LORD.

You just don't have the faith to believe that God CAN and WILL do ALL that HE prophesied.

 

[Ben1445]

An oath was made to the Son, who came in the fashion of Melchizedek.

And Abraham and the Levites through him paid tithes to Melchizedek.

Again, the point being that order is a superior eternal order, the Levitical order being a weak and temporary copy.

I am not talking about the Law and anything under it.
God didn’t make “weak and temporary” promises to Abraham.
I am very familiar with Hebrews and Psalm 2 and nothing in them denies the promises made to Abraham by the God who cannot lie.

 

[Ben1445]

Of course it is. It is the condition by which the Circumcision may occupy the land.

You quoted that passage yourself.

And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee……
…..for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

It doesn’t say return to the Lord with all the Law or all the circumcision.

What else did I quote. If that is what you’re talking about, you are adding in the same meaning into the text as the Jews did who left following God for the works of the carnal commandment.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Right.

God: I think I'll slaughter 6 million Jews so the world will feel sorry for them.

Right.

Aaron: I think I'll misrepresent this guy's post in spite of having said the exact same thing.

I was simply following your response to my post - God puts evil men in power for His purposes, you said it first, I agreed.

We see throughout scripture God disciplining Israel via other nations (Babylon and Rome being the two who did so horrendously). Being used as instruments of God's judgement doesn't make God responsible for the men's vile/sinful acts. But then again you knew that, you chose to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

That wasn’t God, that was Satan and his children.

Of course, yet God allowed it so as to accomplish His purpose.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course, yet God allowed it so as to accomplish His purpose.

I fail to see what was accomplished

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I fail to see what was accomplished

Ok. Your failing to see what purposes God accomplishes doesn't negate the fact that His good and perfect will is always accomplished.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ok. Your failing to see what purposes God accomplishes doesn't negate the fact that His good and perfect will is always accomplished.

That’s a hell of a price to pay then

 

[atpollard]

I fail to see what was accomplished

As an irony, God accomplished with the defeat of Germany in WW2 what Napoleon and Hitler failed to accomplish with two attempts using force … a third European Empire (for better or worse or prophetic reasons or not). It also resulted in a Jewish state and ended a cycle of European wars going back centuries.

Genesis 50:20 [KJV] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

1672 Franco-Dutch war: 342,000 killed
1683 War of the Holy League: 384,000 killed
1688 Nine Years War: 680,000 killed
1701 War of Spanish Succession: 1,251,000 killed
1740 War of Austrian Succession: 359,000 killed
1756 Seven Years War: 992,000 killed
1789 French Revolution: 663,000 killed
1803 Napoleonic Wars: 4,000,000 killed
1870 Franco-Prussian War: 1,171,000 killed
1914 World War 1: 19,174,000 killed
1939 World War 2: 56,000,000 killed

Compare the trend to Europe since 1950.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As an irony, God accomplished with the defeat of Germany in WW2 what Napoleon and Hitler failed to accomplish with two attempts using force … a third European Empire (for better or worse or prophetic reasons or not). It also resulted in a Jewish state and ended a cycle of European wars going back centuries.

Genesis 50:20 [KJV] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

1672 Franco-Dutch war: 342,000 killed
1683 War of the Holy League: 384,000 killed
1688 Nine Years War: 680,000 killed
1701 War of Spanish Succession: 1,251,000 killed
1740 War of Austrian Succession: 359,000 killed
1756 Seven Years War: 992,000 killed
1789 French Revolution: 663,000 killed
1803 Napoleonic Wars: 4,000,000 killed
1870 Franco-Prussian War: 1,171,000 killed
1914 World War 1: 19,174,000 killed
1939 World War 2: 56,000,000 killed

Compare the trend to Europe since 1950.

Nazi extermination of Jews; roughly 6 million killed

 

[atpollard]

Nazi extermination of Jews; roughly 6 million killed

… and it changed the world.

 

[atpollard]

… and it changed the world.

Compare that to the current 2022 Russo-Ukraine War: 350,000 killed

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course it is. It is the condition by which the Circumcision may occupy the land.

You quoted that passage yourself.

The circumcision?!? Do you mean the Covenant fulfillment people…The Children of God perhaps. And aren’t we also by being grafted in.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Compare that to the current 2022 Russo-Ukraine War: 350,000 killed

Personally I’ve seen and participated in enough killing. The bloods up to the horses harness. It’s time for the second coming.