Dispensationalists: Why is This Version of Israel THE One of Prophecy?

[HankD]

I go away for a couple days and a dunnybrook breaks out!

:laugh:

HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

I go away for a couple days and a dunnybrook breaks out!

:laugh:

HankD

See...it was your fault:laugh::laugh:

 

[HankD]

See...it was your fault:laugh::laugh:

Yes, my bad.

HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, my bad.

HankD

I should have looked you up yesterday...i was in seattle and tacoma....delivering in Portland tonight....

 

[AresMan]

Can anyone offer a rational explanation as to why Jehovah would call the Church Israel and Jerusalem Babylon? Why not just call Israel Isreal, Jerusalem Jerusalem, Babylon Babylon and the Church the Church? When you do that, the Bible makes sense.

Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Can anyone offer a rational explanation as to why Jehovah would call Israel Sodom and Gomorrah? Why no just call Israel Israel, Sodom Sodom, and Gomorrah Gomorrah?

 

[kyredneck]

Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Can anyone offer a rational explanation as to why Jehovah would call Israel Sodom and Gomorrah? Why no just call Israel Israel, Sodom Sodom, and Gomorrah Gomorrah?

It's a 'pointer', to a type, like Rev 11:8:

And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.

Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, all contain within them types of [unfaithful, apostate] earthly Jerusalem.

 

[preachinjesus]

Isn't this thread directed at dispy's? Why are so many non posting?

...and again...why are non dispy's participating in this thread? Didn't the OP want the opinion of dispensationalists?

Actually non dispy's need to not participate since the op was not for them. If this was the case from the beginning we wouldn't have been called cultists and heretics. Learn when to not participate.

No need for it to be shut down or in trying to censor us dispy's. Tell your comrades who are insulting and prosyletizing to stay out while dispy's answer the op and all is well

Obviously this is one of your talking points. I'll state something that I've said before: I don't believe that in a general forum one can make the point of saying who can and cannot discuss the point raised in a thread. If you want to limit conversation to a slender segment of any board's population you need to create your own private forum and talk amongst yourselves. Take the Fundamentalist Forum on BB, its clearly only for Fundamentalists. I'm not a Fundamentalist...so I don't post there. However for threads posted here I think its generally open season.

As for my views...well I am a dispensationalist. (I've said this here and plenty of other places on this board) I'm just a progressive dispensationalist.

So what you do you think about that?

 

[HankD]

I should have looked you up yesterday...i was in seattle and tacoma....delivering in Portland tonight....

Anytime.

Let me know.

HankD

 

[InTheLight]

Originally Posted by webdog
...and again...why are non dispy's participating in this thread? Didn't the OP want the opinion of dispensationalists?

Obviously this is one of your talking points. I'll state something that I've said before: I don't believe that in a general forum one can make the point of saying who can and cannot discuss the point raised in a thread.

The request can be made, whether or not others politely follow that request is another matter. The reason I asked for input from dispensationalists is precisely because I wanted to avoid those with contrary views derailing the thread.

OK, here's what I've been able to glean by reading posts that actually address my question (and from other sources):

The Jews are hated and persecuted and an attempt was made to annihilate them.

The Jews, after surviving the Holocaust, rather than fade away into history again the country of Israel was created.

Bible prophecy states that the third Jewish temple will be built (Daniel 9, Rev. 11)

Orthodox Jews are actively gathering the components necessary to rebuild and re-equip the temple.

The nation of Israel is a formidable military power with the world's biggest superpower as an ally. It will be difficult to destroy Israel and disperse the Jews once again.

Does anyone want to add to the list?

 

[kyredneck]

Back to the op...my answer would be to look around the world. If this nation is as insignificant as most on this thread say it is, why is such an insignificant country the size of New Jersey ruling our nightly news?

Who do you think owns the 'nightly news'?

Why does the entire world hate it? What is so important about a non oil producing country in the middle east that satan has turned the world against?

Besides some within the 'Muslim world', give some examples here. Who exactly is 'hating' them? Are you calling criticism of Israel 'hatred of Israel? Or any who refuse to favor or idolize them as 'haters'? Give your definition of 'hatred of Israel'.

I think it was Jesus that said when the sky is pink you know it is going to be good weather the following day and to look for the signs.

The 'pink sky' passage is in reference to those apostate Jews of 'that generation' who failed to discern what was about to come upon them.

 

[InTheLight]

Besides some within the 'Muslim world', give some examples here. Who exactly is 'hating' them? Are you calling criticism of Israel 'hatred of Israel? Or any who refuse to favor or idolize them as 'haters'? Give your definition of 'hatred of Israel'.

Some in the Muslim world? I'd say the majority of the Muslim world. I'd define hatred as the Nazi attempt to eradicate the Jews an example. I'd call White Supremacists haters.

Let's not get off track here.

 

[thomas15]

Isa 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Can anyone offer a rational explanation as to why Jehovah would call Israel Sodom and Gomorrah? Why no just call Israel Israel, Sodom Sodom, and Gomorrah Gomorrah?

So, according to AresMan, Jehovah, when He brought down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as detailed in Genesis, He actually set Jerusalem and Israel on fire. The real Sodom and Gomorrah either didn't exist or was not affected.

 

[Iconoclast]

So, according to AresMan, Jehovah, when He brought down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah as detailed in Genesis, He actually set Jerusalem and Israel on fire. The real Sodom and Gomorrah either didn't exist or was not affected.

No....according to the apostle Paul who quotes this for unbelieving Jews to see and understand in the book of Romans.....God can define the people in the city of Jerusalem, as Sodom, Egypt, Babylon,,, as he see's fit.
saying jerusalem has become as these wicked cities....the enemy of God is very effective to highlight the point.

When Jesus says remember Lot's wife.....it was not just a random example.

When someone goes to the absurd...to try and prevail in a discussion....they are failing to deal with the issue at hand.

Aresman offered the correct verses to answer your initial point.:thumbsup:

 

[thomas15]

When someone goes to the absurd...to try and prevail in a discussion....they are failing to deal with the issue at hand.

So, I'm being absurd and trying to prevail in a discussion against an a-mil/preterist, in a discussion which is addressed to dispies, to get dispy opinions. That is what you are saying.

There are in your world literary devices that apply to your liking when it helps you justify your position when clearly that is not the intended meaning but we dispies are absurd.

 

[webdog]

Obviously this is one of your talking points. I'll state something that I've said before: I don't believe that in a general forum one can make the point of saying who can and cannot discuss the point raised in a thread. If you want to limit conversation to a slender segment of any board's population you need to create your own private forum and talk amongst yourselves. Take the Fundamentalist Forum on BB, its clearly only for Fundamentalists. I'm not a Fundamentalist...so I don't post there. However for threads posted here I think its generally open season.

As for my views...well I am a dispensationalist. (I've said this here and plenty of other places on this board) I'm just a progressive dispensationalist.

So what you do you think about that?

Well, I think when a thread is started with a specific question for a specific group, it is rude to reply if you cannot answer the question from the angle requested in the OP. There have been many threads started by calvinists with questions towards calvinists that I have stayed out of, and some I got into due to some fallacy about my position being bandied around.

I didn't know Progressive sold dispensationalism insurance

 

[InTheLight]

So, I'm being absurd and trying to prevail in a discussion against an a-mil/preterist, in a discussion which is addressed to dispies, to get dispy opinions. That is what you are saying.

There are in your world literary devices that apply to your liking when it helps you justify your position when clearly that is not the intended meaning but we dispies are absurd.

Attack the argument, not the person, please..

 

[mandym]

Attack the argument, not the person, please..

Excuse me but you are off base here. The response was appropriate given the absurd accusations against him.

 

[webdog]

Who do you think owns the 'nightly news'?

Based on the liberal bent...the "god of this world". At any rate, irrelevant.

Besides some within the 'Muslim world', give some examples here. Who exactly is 'hating' them? Are you calling criticism of Israel 'hatred of Israel? Or any who refuse to favor or idolize them as 'haters'? Give your definition of 'hatred of Israel'.

Some :laugh: Try ALL. Check out Sura when you get the chance.

The 'pink sky' passage is in reference to those apostate Jews of 'that generation' who failed to discern what was about to come upon them.

Thank you for further helping my analogy geared towards discernment (something the preterist / amil's fail to grasp)

 

[webdog]

The request can be made, whether or not others politely follow that request is another matter. The reason I asked for input from dispensationalists is precisely because I wanted to avoid those with contrary views derailing the thread.

OK, here's what I've been able to glean by reading posts that actually address my question (and from other sources):

The Jews are hated and persecuted and an attempt was made to annihilate them.

The Jews, after surviving the Holocaust, rather than fade away into history again the country of Israel was created.

Bible prophecy states that the third Jewish temple will be built (Daniel 9, Rev. 11)

Orthodox Jews are actively gathering the components necessary to rebuild and re-equip the temple.

The nation of Israel is a formidable military power with the world's biggest superpower as an ally. It will be difficult to destroy Israel and disperse the Jews once again.

Does anyone want to add to the list?

Based on this thread, yes...its a good start. I will also add Iran's non empty threat to try to wipe Israel off the face of the face of the earth. It was reported yesterday that there was activity around the suspected nuclear facility, too...this followed after a day or two after more threats from Ahm-a-nut-job.

We also have to look at this from Islam's side. Iran's leader believes he will usher in the the 12th and final Imam who (not) coincidentally matches the exact characteristics of the antichrist.

Of course they must have also bought into the christian zionism heresy :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

Notice that Paul said that "blindness in part" was on Israel. He spoke previously of the faithful remnant (who obviously were not blind) who were saved "according to the election of grace." Remember, Paul distinguished between "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor 10:18) and "the Israel of God" (Gal 6:16). The "Israel" that is "partially blind" is geopolitical Israel. The part that is blind are the ones who had "eyes that could not see" (Joh 12:40). "Israel" (geopolitical) did not obtain what they sought, but of them "the election" did, and the rest were blinded (Rom 11:7).

So, there was a part of national Israel who were blind until "the fullness of the Gentiles" come in. Does "the fullness of the Gentiles" mean the totality of every Gentile who would be saved, or does it mean the "prominence" of the Gentiles as the vehicle through which God was "provoking Israel to jealousy" be established? I believe the latter.

The "fullness of the Gentiles" was complete when God destroyed the remains of Old Covenant Israel in A.D. 70. The visible manifestation of an obsolete covenant with its types and shadows and Temple worship are gone. They were trampled by pagan Gentiles as a sign of God's judgment against "Israel after the flesh" that rejected their own Messiah. Since then, true Israel are "Jew and Gentile" equal and not under the Law of types and shadows. True Israel are Jew and Gentile found anywhere in the world. True Israel is "the remnant" of Jews that "the God of Sabaoth" had reserved plus the Gentiles of faith who are now "grafted into" the "olive tree" which is Israel (Rom 11:17 c.f. Jer 11:16).

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

The Greek word for so does not mean "then." It mean "in this manner." Paul is NOT saying that after the fullness of the Gentiles be come. He is saying that by means of Gentiles being brought in, all "Israel" will be saved. The way all Israel is saved through the New Covenant is that Israel is now the faithful remnant of geopolitical Israel that God has preserved plus the faithful Gentiles "grafted in." God cast away the unfaithful natural branches and rebuilt "Israel" by leaving the remnant and grafting in Gentiles by faith.

Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit , even so it is now. [unfaithful Jews after the flesh persecuting faithful Jews and Gentiles "born again"]
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Israel after the flesh did not "walk according to this rule;" therefore, geopolitical Israel cannot be "the Israel of God."

The Old Covenant was made with a geopolitical entity. It consisted of faithful and non-faithful members who were circumcised from birth.

The New Covenant is "different" and "better" in that its members comprise only those were are regenerate and receive the "circumcision made without hands."

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
Jer 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.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

In the New Covenant, there are no "covenant breakers." All members are regenerate. The covenant is not made with a geopolitical entity but with people who will encompass the world. "The house of Israel and the house of Jacob" were divided at the time this prophecy was given; therefore, God used language contemporary with the time of Jeremiah. The two kingdoms were "united" under Roman bondage at the time the New Covenant was ratified.

We know that the New Covenant is a present reality. Jesus said that the New Covenant is "in My blood." The writer to the Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 and says that Jesus "hath made the first old" (Heb 8:13). Paul said that God made him and his companions "able ministers of the new covenant" (2 Cor 3:6). He then referenced, again, the blindness of Jews in "the reading of the Old Covenant."

As I explained above, the "blindness in part" is effectually done way at A.D. 70. Yes, Jews today are still "blind" to the gospel, just as any atheist Gentile is also "blind," but "the fullness of the Gentiles" has come in by the destruction of the Temple and the Old Covenant destroyed. There is no more geopolitical Israel in covenant with God, because that covenant "is done away."

No, Israel/Jacob and the Church are not the same in the sense that (qualified according to context) they God's people according to two different successive covenants. However, God does not have two distinct peoples with two distinct eternal plans of redemption and two distinct eternal destinies. Also, God has never had a covenant with anyone that prescribes blessings by default based solely on genetics.

Aside from confusing history, chronology, and covenant details, I would agree, but..

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

How can these verses be any clearer. Are you seriously suggesting that, in the future, there will be a distinction between "Jew" and "Greek" "in Christ"?!

No wonder there is so much confusion about "end times" because people are forced to dismantle the language expressed in Paul's epistles to try to explain how Daniel's continuous 70 weeks were somehow "interrupted," making all the things that were happening at the time of prophecy somehow have to come back to live so that the remaining week can occur.

Of course!

But, God made the New Covenant "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," yet there was one nation under bondage to Rome when Jesus was crucified. Paul is clear that we Gentiles are subjects of this New Covenant, and the writer to the Hebrews is clear that the New Covenant is a present reality. The New Covenant is "in My blood," and Paul gave the same Lord's Supper ordinance to Gentile Corinthians that Jesus gave to His Jewish disciples. If you are "in My blood," you are in the New Covenant. Period.

Paul explains in Romans 11 that the faithful Gentiles are "grafted in" to Israel (Rom 11:17 c.f. Jer 11:16). The new Israel of God is the olive tree ("Israel") with "some of the [natural] branches" broken off and faithful Gentiles
grafted in.

Hmm. I think I have explained above how this hard distinction is not necessary. Also, Israel is called "the church in the wilderness." Paul refers to those "who walk according to this rule" that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avail anything in Christ as "the Israel of God."

Do you see jesus Second Coming as the AD 70 event than?