Historical lineage of Israel

Well, then, Strat, I think you have a bit of a quandry here. Because there are no papers (other than the Bible) to prove Jesus is of the lineage he says - those would have been destroyed at the temple in AD70, too.

Furthermore, to follow your line of reasoning, God would have to have the paper deed to Jerusalem before He could legally make it the New Jerusalem. If you need to have legal papers to prove these things, you are in a bit of a quandry, don't you think?

Me - I don't need the papers. I accept it all by faith. It's all in God's Word. He said it. That's good enough for me.

 

We can (and should) support the present day State of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation, but that's where it ends. We cannot as Baptists support the governmental system of the State of Israel, because it's a Jewish theocratic system, and it violates the Baptist Distinctive of Separation of Church and State.

As far as the lineage of Israel, that is in regards to a people, not a tract of land decided by political boundaries. A Jew is a Jew regardless of where he/she resides. The largest population of Jews is in the Unites States, not Israel, and most American Jews have no desire whatsoever to live in Israel, any more than most of us have the desire to live in the lands where our ancestors came from (which, in the case of my maternal side, no longer exists).

 

Oh, horsefeathers! What bunk!

The Baptist distinctive of separation of church and state the way you have interpreted it would be in direct conflict with the coming 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ then. That's why the straw man you just threw in here got blown back into the weeds.

 

Strat, the least you could do is cut and paste the verses for me instead of giving the references if you want me to comment. Of course, I will go ahead and check them out anyway just because that is my nature, LOL. But since they aren't in front of me at the moment, I'll get back to you with any comments.

 

Sorry JV, but I, as a Baptist, have absolutely no problem with this. It's their country, & if that type of govt is their desire, then so be it! Just because I would not want it is no reason for me or anybody else, to deny ( or not support, if you will,) their freedom to construct any type of govt they want.

This premise is the basis of my objection to 99.99% of the liberals objectives; they are trying to force me to live by their standards by making their "ways" the only legality.

 

There is no conflict since there will be no literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on this present earth as you describe it.

 

There is no conflict since there will be no literal 1000 year reign of Jesus on this present earth as you describe it. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm falling off of my chair, now.

Surely you can't be a Baptist, Ken. Let alone a Southern Baptist. I've never personally known or met (other than this board) a Baptist who doesn't believe in the literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ. Surely you must have some lively Sunday School classes when you bring up your view at your SBC church.

So, please start a new thread if you want to rehash the literal vs allegorical vs figurative 1000 year reign under Other Religions. I'm sure some of your usual buddies will show up.

 

Dr. Bob where are you? I've been thrown to the usual straw "wolves" here.

Strat: I looked up your verses and also looked up that they are especially used by people who want to "prove" the Bible is full of contradictions. Since Israel did not possess all the land at the time of Deuteronomy/Moses, it seems to even be a common topic on the atheist board, using the Scriptures you gave, to prove the Bible is wrong, as well as those same verses being referenced on many web pages which teach replacement theology, as well. Thanks for the interesting tour on google.

At any rate. Perhaps Israel did once possess the land, though at the time those verses were written, they still hadn't conquered all of it. But that is beside the point. There is the matter of "everlasting covenants" made by God. God didn't make a condition on the covenants He made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Neither did He make a condition when He made an "everlasting covenant" with Noah not to destroy the earth by water again. An everlasting covenant is an everlasting covenant, when God swears an oath. Period.

Next, even if Israel did possess the land and lost it due to their sin and turning to strange God's, there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled. These prophecies were written at a later time than the time of Moses.

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:

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:

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.

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.

By a commentator:

Another prophecy that was not fulfilled at the time of Moses:

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth (Isaiah 11:11,12).

As noted by one commentator:

 

Okay, rsr, thanks. But they were before my time. I still don't personally know a Baptist who believes as Ken does, especially a SBC Baptist. But I apologize, Ken.

 

Yes we do!

I'm glad we can agree to disagree. About the atheists view point - who cares? Whether it was physical possessing and conquering at the time or not - perhaps it's a matter lost in interpretation from Hebrew or maybe it was a matter of faith. You know, the evidence of things not yet seen? That type of thing. I don't view it as an error. I'm sure some Biblical theologian who knows Hebrew and all historical data replete with old maps could set the atheists straight, LOL.

 

I can find nothing in the Baptist Distinctives or the SBC articles of faith and practice that require SBC members from requiring a belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Jesus Christ. I don't mean to start a war here, or hijack the thread, but I don't think it's wise to question another's baptisticness when the issue at hand is not a required issue of baptist belief.

 

Back to the original topic. It is an interesting question that without the records that were destroyed with the temple, who can validate their priestly heritage. That is the most interesting question.

For us, it's no big deal. Because we know the identity of our high priest.

But for an orthodox Jew, it does raise some a bit of a problem.

 

I don't bring it up. Very few people know that I am have no use for dispensational premillennialism. In person I am rather shy and tend to keep my views to myself so only the non-face-to-face environment of the Internet enables me to discuss this, and other issues as well.

 

Thanks for your honesty, Ken.

 

I actually don't find where it says that the 144,000 will necessarily even know what tribe they are part of. They won't have to prove it. I think it will be obvious that they are part of the sealed.

We don't know how God will seal them.

The important thing to know is that God knows. He has not required that the person prove that he is sealed.