Should there be any limits to supporting Israel?

I claim OT Israel doesn’t exist. If you wish to quote me do so honestly.

Again, if this subject is to emotional for you perhaps it would be best if you didn’t post. You keep saying thing I did not say. Have you actually read my posts?

Here we go again. Can you show me where I stated this? This is usually what happens, some one attacks the dispensational view and the dispies go hysterical and make outlandish statements like this.

So your eschatology has no effect on your view of modern Israel? Interesting, considering the topic of this thread.

Be my guest; don’t forget to include these:

What you are advocating is Replacement Theology, a theology which I consider heretical.

(You could always join the Hezbollah and fight an unseen enemy if you don't believe me).

You claim that Israel no longer exists

Christ died for you, and he died for the Jews. Paul went to the Jew first and also to the Greek (the Gentiles) [Romans 1:16]. How can you deny these things?

Good advice, use it.

So now they have existed since Abraham and not “always”. Was Abraham a Jew? When are the people first referred to as Jews? Which ones are called Jews?

Join the crowd:

In this you greatly err. Or you deliberately misconstrue what I said. Which do you do? Are you in error, or are you deliberately misconstruing my words (there is a more ugly word for that).

Perhaps you should give yourself a warning.

LE claimed what I believed was Replacement Theology”. I explained it wasn’t and why it wasn’t. You then come and on your first post say this:

What you are advocating is Replacement Theology, a theology which I consider heretical.

What am I to think? Other than repeating an untruth.

Bingo.
.

 

Jesus call those Jews who reject Christ and persecuting the Church a synagogue of Satan. If the Jews today are to be considered the same as the Old Covenant Jews then does this still apply to those today? I ask this because dispies are quick to point out verses that show Israel in a positive manner but never those verses that do the opposite. If Gen 15 is still applicable today is Rev 2:9? Is Duet. 32?

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.


Is Matt 23?


Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Ever hear John Hagee use these terms?

Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

If Zech 2:8 is still applicable:

Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.

Why isn’t Rev 3:9 and the other verses I quoted?

Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Is this what you would call a false accusation against me?

So bloodline does matter?

That’s right, there is no pure bloodline and it wasn’t about being in the right race. It was about faith.

When you e-mail the moderators, let them know about this one as well.

P.S. Preterism is the only view that says God kept His promises and did so when He said He would.

No it doesn’t:

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

He is referring to the persecuting Jews, who by the way, Jesus claims aren’t real Jews.

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

I didn’t, Jesus did. Furthermore since I don’t blame the Jews of today for the killing of the Messiah my view would not call them that. But dispies who believe Jews and Israel today are the same as found in the NT, well………

I prefer that over heretic.

 

"OT Israel fulfilled its purpose and is no more." Post #116
What exactly do you mean by honesty? "Israel...is no more." How much plainer can you get?

It is emotional only to those who you have stirred up by denying the facts thereof. You are like the anti-semitic people that are spreading the lies about the holocaust never happening. When those incidents happen, the Jews in our nation are greatly offended, especially the ones that lived through it. You deny that these Jews exist. I have quoted you. Your quote stands above. Israel is no more. Would you like to publish that in some of the local Jewish magazines?

If I hadn't read your posts, I wouldn't be able to quote from them.

By "this" I assume you are referring to the reference of "spreading hate."
"Your hatefilled statement is exactly the point Joseph is making with this thread. Your eschatology drives your foriegn policy." Post #125
--Yes I agree, this happens when "people" make outlandish hysterical statements like the one above.

Now who is misquoting who? Speak of Bibliology, what the Bible says.
Eschatology, a study of last things. Yes that tells me who Israel is. But that does not determine my foreign policy whatsoever. I don't make foreign policy; the government does. How ludicrous. I preach the truth of God's Word from my pulpit. I don't preach politics and foreign policy. I feel sorry for you if that is what goes on in your church and comes out of your pulpit.

I thought you were intelligent enough to keep a discussion within the boundaries of the context in which it was being discussed. When I said the Jews have "always" existed, I obviously wasn't talking before the foundation of the world. How much more particular do you demand me to define my words for you. I could s-p-e-l-l o-u-t each one for you. Will that help your understanding?

BTW If you don't know the history of the word Jew, and its etymology, perhaps you should do your own study on that.

When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck, then....
Both LE and myself have heard the very same "talk" before. We have heard the same arguments, the same views, the same "theology" (if that is what you call it), by people who were at least honest enough to admit that they were advocating Replacement Theology. But you are advocating Replacement Theology and then turning around and saying you are not. We've been through this before. I recognize the theology when I see it.
You deny the existence of Israel, and you have given your reasons why. There's not much more to say on the subject. It is an anti-semitic theology. It contradicts what the Bible teaches. If Israel does not exist today, Who did Paul witness to when he went to the "Jew first and then to the Gentile?" Your position is contrary to what the Bible teaches in a multitude of ways.
DHK

 

In Revelation chapters 2 and 3, Jesus wrote seven specific letters to seven specific churches addressing their problems at that time in that era. The only things that apply to us is the principles that we glean from them. The synagogue of Satan was something that existed at that time. It was historical. It was actual. I am not about to jump right in and allegorize that phrase making it refer to an entire segment of Jews throughout history. I don't believe that is the case, and I have no evidence to believe such.

Jesus is addressing the Jews of his time (ca. 30 A.D.). What has that got to do with our day today? Again you can draw principles, but not direct applications.

Do I care?

This was Christ's condemnation of the Jews at that time. It has nothing to do with us today. Why not bring the Book of Exodus into it as well. Does God still speak to us through a burning bush? There is history that is recorded in the Bible. Christ's words to the Jews are part of that history.

This is not history, but prophecy. One is in the past; the other yet to come. Christ is yet to come for the nation of Israel. Israel is the apple of his eye. The nations of the past (and present) did spoil Israel. They will pay in the future, with the judgement of God.

Find out the difference between past and future; history and prophecy.
[quoteIs this what you would call a false accusation against me?[/quote]
What false accusation? A question--Do you believe in the promises of God is not a false accusation. I have faith in God's promises that He knows them that are His. Don't you?

Yes, it matters. I said it matters. It matters more to God than it does to me. He knows them that are His. It is not my job to figure out who they are. I don't worry about it. Why should you, unless you are in a state of disbelieve calling God's Word into question.

The nation of Israel begins with Abraham and the promises that were given to him and his generation. It was sealed with the sign of circumcision. It is not the only sign that was given to the Jews. The Mosaic covenant was ratified by keeping holy the sabbath day. That sign was also between the Jews and their generations forever and ever. Read Exodus 31. We have to signs to two covenants, each sign that will last forever, each sign for an actual physical nation, a nation that has a blood-line. The Jews of this day and age are still circumcised. Why? The Jews of today still keep the Sabbath. Why? Because you cannot separate the faith from the nation. Both are necessary. Without the bloodline Christ would have never been our Saviour.
Without the bloodline we would not have the Word of God.
Without the bloodline we would not have the Apostles.
Without the bloodline we would not have the prophets.
The bloodline is important.
DHK

 

Like I said, OT Israel is no more. I did not say Israel is no more. They are not the same. My point was clear but you decided to go with hyperbole over substance.

See what I mean? Deny Dispensationalism and you eventually are called anti-semetic.

You say you don’t know who the real Jews God does, then you turn around and say those in Israel are the Jews.

Yes, it matters. I said it matters. It matters more to God than it does to me. He knows them that are His. It is not my job to figure out who they are.

Yet you act as if you have figured out who they are.

There are Biblical Jews, and there are Jews. You say there is no difference where I say there is. Is Tom Arnold a Jew because he converted to Judaism? My answer: Yes in modern terms, no in Biblical terms. What is your answer.

I do not deny modern Jews and Judaism exists, and you have no quote that says so. I think everyone, even those who disagree with me, understands my point, except you.

Actually I think many Jews agree with me that modern Israel is not the Israel of the Bible and have so stated. they do not call themselve Israelites.

Tom Delay did, Tom Delay was elected by citizens. To say we the people don’t determine our foreign policy by the people we elect is a rather strange statement. But, you may be correct, since you are a Canadian it may work different in your country but I doubt it.

Good, I wish more did as you no matter what their views on politics.

Not mine thankfully, but it has in previous Churches I have attended. At least sometimes it did. Never did care for it.

The context was race. If Abraham wasn’t a “Jew” then it is relevant to the conversation. Especially when Paul calls those in Christ the “seed of Abraham”.

It is also relevant when Paul seems to call physical Jews non-Jews and gentiles true Jews as he did in Romans 2.

But this is the thrust of my entire argument. I am told modern Jews are the Jews of the Bible, Israel of today is the Israel of the Bible, so what has changed in Judaism that makes the statements of Jesus null and void. I do not believe the Jews of today are the Jews of Jesus’ time therefore I can’t refer to these statements as relevant to today, but if I believed as you, I would have to. In fact some in the dispie arena do.

 

Look, just so you know, debates can get heated and emotional and sometimes out of hand. I have no hard feelings toward you or LE or Blessing of Ed nor anyone else on this board. Most of you agree with 95% of my Church on these things and most of my family. I would gladly call each of you my friend and brothers and sisters in Christ. There is no doubt I would like each and everyone of you if we ever met personally and, I think, you would actually like me. Believe it or not I'm a pretty quiet and laid back individual.

I love debate and discussion (the old Crossfire show on CNN was one of my favorites in the day of Pat Buchanen and Tom Braden) so this is enjoyable to me and I really don't take things to personal. I hope you all understand I try to attack the view and not the person. If I have crossed the line,which I'm sure I have in the past, then please forgive me and accept my apologies. It is not how I wished to be known.

I wish we could all get together in person and do this instead of a message board where sometimes thing are written and taken in a way which they were not meant. Too bad this kind of debates and discussions are not held in churches. Sometimes I think Baptists may be the most "biblically ignorant" bunch out here. Bring up Calvinism in any Baptist Church and 75% wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about and another 10% couldn't make a biblical case for either side. So perhaps I come to this board a little over-zealous because I am starving for this kind of dialogue.

So come after my views and I'll continue to come after yours but I hope you understand I'm coming after the views and not you personally. I find debates as the best teaching tool available, at least for me they are.

Now, on with the fight.

 

Dispies such as Hal Lindsey and Jack VanImpe, and some on this board, are having a field day with the prospect of a new Sanhedrin forming in Israel today.

From out good buddy Thomas Ice:
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/IsItTimeforTheTemple.html

Don’t you understand my point? If this represents the Sanhedrin of Jesus’ day, then don’t the statements Jesus made about them also represent the Sanhedrin of today? If they were a synagogue of Satan then, why not now? Especially when leading dispies connect the two.

But why? What has changed? If Gnosticism was condemned in the NT should it not be condemned today? You don’t see the inconsistency?

Exactly my point, if we are going to bring Genesis up then why not Exodus and Deut 32. and Matthew 23? It is dispies reaching back to the OT and applying it today in regards to modern Israel, my question is why only certain passages?

Israel didn’t spoil itself?

Can’t we disagree without calling into question each others belief in the Word of God? We disagree with each others interpretation, but I would never question your belief that the Bible is His Word and is truth.

Is it your belief that when the Bible uses the term “forever and ever” it means unending and eternal?

So you do want to include Exodus? How about Deut 32?

Deu 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation.

Deu 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
Deu 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

Deu 32:28 For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.
Deu 32:29 O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end!

Why does Paul call circumcised Jews, not real Jews?

The lineage was important but irrelevant in the New Covenant.

 

Grasshopper: //I hope you all understand I try to attack the view and not the person. If I have crossed the line,which I'm sure I have in the past, then please forgive me and accept my apologies. It is not how I wished to be known. //

Me also. I really don't remember any attacks on anybody named
'Ed' (I could have forgotten, but isn't forgotten pretty much
like forgivin'?

Grasshopper: //Now, on with the fight.//

Or in King James English:
Sally forth to the fray!

 

About the "synagogue of Satan" in Rev. 2:9: (Church at Smyrna)

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=17&source=1&seq=i.73.2.3

 

Yes bro Benjamin I am a native desert rat. Born in Wickenburg and raised in Chandler...And I am pre-mill, pre-trib cause that is what Paul was!!

Bro Tony

 

Joseph, God is sovereign over all. And He is kind enough to tell us what will happen during the End Times through prophecy.

 

Originally Posted by I Am Blessed 16

Amen, Sister I Am Blessed 16 -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

Yes. When Jesus returns He will put an end to this present universe and those who are saved will go to Heaven and the unsaved will go to Hell.

It really isn't any more complicated than that. Although some people mistakenly think that it is.

 

Originally Posted by LadyEagle
//God is sovereign over all. And He is kind enough to tell us what will happen during the End Times through prophecy.//

Amen, Sister LadyEagle -- You are so RIGHT ON!

Originally Posted by KenH
//Yes. When Jesus returns He will put an end to this present universe
and those who are saved will go to Heaven and the unsaved will go to Hell.//

Originally Posted by KenH
//It really isn't any more complicated than that.
Although some people mistakenly think that it is.//

Yes, you are right. But some think that God's telling
us some of the details of 'what will happen during the
End Times' is complicated. The End Times is way less
complicated than Fourier Transforms. The End Times
is more complicated than a donkey's braying