A Failed Messiah - A Covenant With Israel
Pastor Dave
Let us first pray and then examine this and see how we must
abandon the belief of Dispensationalism, which says that God
failed to bring His word to pass and teaches that Jesus
failed in His mission. I'm not saying this because of
my own beliefs. That is what Dispensationalism teaches.
That Jesus came to establish an Earthly kingdom and failed.
Let us first look at some ancient quotes...
"Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment
and all those things which have come to pass for us:
the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day,
the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand,
and the second and glorious Coming" - St. Chrysostom's
Liturgy (4th century)
"Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming;
his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or
his Kingdom�s coming; He has respect to his appearing
in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace,
which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and
other extraordinary Providences which should attend it."
- Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
"This being so, then the words relating to a personal
return of Jesus are to be taken as pointing to the
Destruction of Jerusalem (Mat 10:23; 16:28)."
- Philip Schaff (19th century)
Please see:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html
...for further comments about historic views of the
2nd Coming.
Now on to the subject at hand...
Did you know that what is now taught by the church...
Dispensationalism and "the Rapture", are taught because
of one belief? And do you know what that belief is?
It is the belief that the Messiah FAILED! That's right!
The belief that THE MESSIAH FAILED!!!
Not too many "Dispensationalists" realize that their belief
is based on the idea that the Messiah came to establish
His Kingdom and failed to do it, causing the Jews to reject
Him and so, His Kingdom was postponed.
Darby gave us popularized Dispensationalism. And
no one can deny that it was after Darby, that Christian
colleges began springing up that taught this idea of
Dispensationalism. Of course, Scofield, Ryrie, et al,
helped to popularize this system.
But how can they claim that the Lord failed?!
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish
that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing
whereto I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11
That which He pleased. Hmmm...
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; he hath put Him
to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand."
- Isaiah 53:10
It seems to me that what pleased the Lord, was for His Son
to be rejected and to make Him an offering for our sin.
Dispensationalism is built on the idea that God was wrong
and that these two passages are lies. And yet, those who
buy into this false theology, which is what all doctrines
that put off the Lord's Kingdom are based on, claim to
be serving God. How can that be?!
Darby believed that previous dispensations had failed and
that the church also had failed and that only a remnant of
it would be saved and of course, this "remnant" consisted
of his own followers, known as, "the Assembly" and he also
speculated that the church would be replaced with a revived
national Israel. Hmmm... Sound familiar to what you are
now waiting for??? National Israel to be saved? Hmmm?
Dispensationalism believes that the purpose of the first
advent of Jesus Christ was to offer an earthly Kingdom
to the Jews. This Kingdom would reinstate the Old Testament
legal system and it's expansion to the entire world under
the Messiah.
Does this sound familiar to you? It should. What you
believe is a reworking of this. (:
When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ and His Kingdom offer,
Plan B went into effect and Christ went to the cross to
initiate the dispensation of Grace and the "mystery church".
Had Israel received her King there would have been no cross
and no Gospel!
That is what your belief is based on. (:
So what if Jews had accepted the offer? Then what of the
prophecies pointing to Christ's atoning death? Once again,
we have a belief that God's word could come back void
and one which seeks to make the cross a consolation prize!
Darby believed that the church is just a "parenthesis" in
God's divine plan, which is for national Israel (words in
brackets and parenthesis added for clarification only).
"The Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no
place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive
parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's
earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give
a fuller character and meaning to them (the Jews)." - Darby
So according to Darby, man "interrupted" God's plan to
establish a physical kingdom for the Jews. Interesting,
huh?
But *you* don't believe this, you say? Then why are you
waiting for a rebuilt Temple, complete with animal
sacrifices and a saved national Israel? Have you taken
the time to realize just how messed up that belief is?
1) God sets up the system of animal sacrifices.
2) God sends His Son to die on the cross as a ONE TIME
sacrifice for our sins.
3) God decides that what is necessary, is to ordain a
rebuilt Temple in which animal sacrifices are performed
and then later, Jesus moves in there and rules from
there.
Say what?!? God sends His Son to die on the cross as
a one time sacrifice, so that He can go back to animal
sacrifices?!?
And this all means that somehow God maintains dual
covenants. One with national Israel and one with the
church. How else can the church be the saved and
national Israel be saved?
Yet the Bible says...
"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." - Galatians 3:28
And the Bible says that there is no more "national Israel",
as far as Biblical salvation is concerned. Paul showed that
the prophecies related to God's church and that "Israel" is
symbolic of His church, "the Israel of God".
Galatians 6:15-16
15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16) And as many as walk according to this rule,
peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the
Israel of God.
Now if this is true, how can it be that God is looking
to save *NATIONAL* Israel?
And didn't Paul warn the church in Galatia not to return
to Judaism? Didn't he call the idea of following Christ
and the Law "returning to the beggarly elements"?
And didn't he call them "foolish" for wanting to do this?
3:1) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,
that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes
Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified
among you?
3:2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit,
are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4:9) But now, after that ye have known God, or rather
are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and
beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in
bondage?
So again I ask, how can you be waiting for God to save
national Israel, given these Biblical facts?
Well, many would quote the following passages from Romans.
Before quoting them though, I would submit that to do so
and to take the stance that they do, is to pit Scripture
against itself. How can the passages quoted above be true
*AND* what they believe be true? Huh???
Romans 11:25-26a
25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26a) And so all Israel shall be saved
Now at first glance, given how we are trained to read it,
it seems as if what is believed today, is right. That God
saves part of Israel, then some Gentiles, then goes back
and saves all of national Israel. But given what we read
from Galatians, I would suggest a different way of
reading it.
You probably read it as follows...
1) It says "in part" and so, some Jews are saved.
2) Then the Gentiles are brought in.
3) Then God goes back and saves all of national Israel.
But that doesn't really make any sense. And the question
here is, what does Paul mean by "all Israel"? That is the
key here, isn't it? And we will look at that further down.
And note that it doesn't say, "and then all Israel...".
Rather, it says, "and so all Israel...". That word "so"
from the Greek, means "in this manner". In other
words, it is saying that some Jews would be saved,
then the fulness of the Gentiles (whatever amount
that was) and IN THAT MANNER, all Israel would
be saved!
So try reading it with that in mind. The way I see it...
1) Many Jews were saved (the first century church
started out Jewish and was almost exclusively Jewish
for the first 3 1/2 years after Pentecost).
2) Israel was blinded, but only in part, so that the
Gentiles could be brought in (this is when the Apostle Paul
shook the dust off of him at the Jews and went to the
Gentiles and became the Apostle to the Gentiles). So some
Jews were still being saved and the fullness of the Gentiles
was being brought in.
3) Once the fullness of the Gentiles was brought in,
THEN, "all Israel" was "saved".
Some Jews are saved and some Gentiles are saved.
*THEN*, "all Israel", *IS* saved.
God started with the Jews and Scripture shows, that when
they rejected the Gospel, that it was brought out to the
Gentiles. The Jews had their chance. They said no. (:
That does not mean that no Jews can be saved. It does
however mean that this concept of "national salvation"
is a farce and quite frankly, it makes joke out of
Scripture. Or have we not read that "there is neither Jew,
or Gentile" in Christ? How can that be true, if God
is preferencing national Israel? That simply does not
make sense. (:
The "blindness" happened "in part" to national Israel,
so that the fullness of the Gentiles could come in. Since
it does say, "in part", this does not mean that no Jews
could be saved during that time, so yes, they had their
opportunity.
Most are assuming that he means that some Jews are saved
and some Gentiles are saved and then God goes back to
national Israel and saves it, thereby forcing every single
Jew on the planet to be saved.
That would mean that the blindness would have to happen
to national Israel AS A WHOLE. And yet, we know that
there were some Jews still being saved. In fact, it was
mostly Jews.
Paul was not saying that the whole of national Israel was
blinded. He said, "in part". And what would be the point
of that? If He's going to save all of national Israel
anyway, why save some Jews first and then some Gentiles
and then the rest of the Jews? Huh?! This has God
proceeding in a non-sensical manner! (:
We must stop taking passages out of context, for it is then
that they do not read as they were meant. Looking in
THE SAME LETTER, we can see that Paul discounted the
idea of "national Israel" as being what he was talking
about.
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
- Romans 9:6b
Now how can it be that God is going to save national Israel,
when the Scriptures tell us that not everyone who is born
into national Israel, is of Israel? Therefore, it cannot be
"national Israel" that was being discussed as being saved
(although some of it would be, as Paul said).
Do you not see that when this claim is made, that by
default, one is claiming that it is circumcision that is the
key and not faith in Christ, because it ends up saying that
God is going to save national Israel, regardless if they
believe or not and btw, as a side note, that also fries
the "free will" belief, if you have one. :)
Let us read it again, with Romans 9:6b (quoted above) in mind...
"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own
opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel
will be saved" - Romans 11:25-26a
The "shall be" is not future tense from the point of time
after the fullness of the Gentiles came in. It was future
tense to the point in time that Paul was writing it and
present tense to the point in time that the fullness of
the Gentiles had come in.
And now we can see that it reads quite differently.
Unless of course, you do think that God was acting
in a non-sensical manner? Surely not, right? :)
"Come, let us REASON TOGETHER, saith the Lord."
Paul is saying that some Jews are saved and some Gentiles
are saved and once the fullness of the Gentiles had come in,
AT THAT POINT, "all Israel shall be saved".
How can this be said? Easy! The true Israel is *NOT*
"national Israel". It is "the Israel of God", remember?
Dispensationalists are confused about what the true
"Israel" is and it was the true Israel that God was
going to save, amen?
To say otherwise, is to pit the Bible against itself.
Namely, for example, it is to pit Romans 11:25-26 against
both Romans 9:6b and Galatians 6:15-16.
Furthermore, it is to pit it against more passages!
What else does Paul say in Romans?
"Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel; Though the number
of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work,
and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work
will the Lord make upon the earth." - Romans 9:27-28
Note: A REMNANT will be saved, not all of national Israel!!!
And let us look at Romans 11, which is where the verses
come from, that the Dispy's think prove their case,
to give it some context...
Romans 11:5,25-26a
5) Even so then at this present time also there is
a remnant according to the election of grace.
25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26a) And so all Israel shall be saved
Now how can it be "a remnant" and be "all of national
Israel" at the same time??? Hello??? :)
It says, "and SO all Israel...", i.e., "and IN THIS MANNER".
It does NOT say, "And THEN all Israel shall be saved"!!!
Shouldn't we be taking the time to think this through???
Or is our vanity so great, that we will believe *anything*,
if it means that we can claim that it's all about us today?!
Darby clearly believed that it was up to man, what would
happen and so, God, in His grace (according to Darby),
kept adding "dispensations", to continue to give man a
chance. God was merely "interfering" with what man
was doing, bringing in these new "dispensations" and
each time, man failed and so, God had to keep bringing
in more dispensations.
Now doesn't this mean that God simply couldn't get it
right and that man is running the show, making God
contuanually rework His plans? How can we trust our
Bibles, if that is true?!
"...the dispensations themselves all declare some leading
principles or interference of God, some condition in which
He has placed man, principles which in themselves are
everlastingly sanctioned of God, but in the course of these
dispensations placed responsibility in the hands of man for
the display and discovery of what he was, and the bringing
in their infallible establishment in Him to whom the glory
of them all rightly belonged.....in every instance, there
was a total and immediate failure as regarded man (sic),
however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on
by grace the dispensation in which man thus failed in the
outset; and further, that there is no instance of the
restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there
might be partial revivals of it through faith."
Of course, this makes God *reactive* to what man decides,
instead of the other way around. And Scripture may or
may not be fulfilled, is the inevitable conclusion reached.
I.e., God sets a plan in motion, man fails to accept it and
so, God adds another "dispensation" out of His grace and
there is no way to recapture that previous dispensation.
Now this might not be so bad, except that Darby believes,
as I previously stated, that it also means that God has
failed to establish what He stated, since Darby believes
that the reason the Messiah came, was to establish an
Earthly kingdom and that He failed to do so and so, here
we are, in another "dispensation", which has also failed
btw and so, now we wait for national Israel to be
established again, as God's people. So God's plans were
a waste of time and He will end up going in a big circle. (:
Now as I said, look at what it is YOU believe and you'll
see a lot of what Darby said in it. That is because what
you believe came from what Darby, et al, popularized.
But for me, these things only serve to remind me of what
the Lord Jesus Christ *actually* said, which flies in the
face of all of this! Jesus said that He came for the
purpose of dying and being raised. So how could God's
purpose have failed? And when did Jesus EVER preach
an *Earthly* kingdom? Can anyone show me even one
passage, in which Jesus preached a *physical*, *Earthly*
kingdom? Can anyone show me even one passage in
which Jesus preached the saving of all of national Israel,
or even that He came then to establish an Earthly kingdom?
So how does the teaching of Darby and most in the modern
church compare with what Jesus said, when we look at how
He answered the question of whether or not a physical
kingdom would come, since that is exactly what the Pharisees
were asking about (and note that Jesus did not say,
"But later it will be.")?
Luke 17:20-21
20) Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when
the Kingdom of God would come, He answered them
and said, The kingdom of God does not come with
observation;
21) Nor will they say, See here!, or See there!.
For indeed, the Kingdom of God is within you.
The word "observation" is translated from a Greek word.
Parateresis - Inspection, that is, ocular evidence
Ocular = Of or relating to the eye; the sense of sight.
So let's compare what Jesus said, to what Darby and
most today claim about this.
Jesus: The Kingdom of God does *NOT* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Most: The Kingdom of God *WILL* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Jesus: They will *NOT* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Most: They *WILL* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Let us note that Jesus NEVER, EVER taught a physical Kingdom
of God on Earth, that people could see with the eye and
point at and say, "Look! There it is!". NEVER AND NOT
ONCE!
So when we see the claim that what they read elsewhere
in the Scriptures proves their claim, they are really saying
that Jesus was wrong and they are pitting the Bible against
itself! (:
Quite simply, they are failing to see the typology of the
Old Testament and they are failing to see that the
prophecies of a "New Jerusalem" (Isaiah 65:17-25,
for example) are not physical truths, but spiritual truths
that would later be revealed! They are reading the
Scriptures "with a veil on".
Jesus' statement was VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR! It was not
some "super fantastic, sci-fi, complex" statement, made up
of "reverse language Bible speak"! Yet Darby and those like
him want us to believe that we are to interpret what Jesus
said, as meaning the exact opposite of what He did say. (:
And not only this, but that this "kingdom" will be a Jewish
national kingdom. So where does that leave the church?
Now you see why Darby reached the conclusion he did.
Either it is the church, or it is national Israel. How can
it be both? It can't!!!
Now who are we to believe? Darby? Those in the modern
church who twist even his teaching and claim a dual kingdom?
Or Jesus?
I know Who I pick! :)
But what of national Israel? What place does it hold
in Biblical prophecy today? I would submit.. NONE!
I know that seems strange and even "anti-Biblical" to some,
but the cold hard fact is, they have no place left in
prophecy. Many will point to the "fig tree" statement
by Jesus. But where does Jesus say that the fig tree
is national Israel? And have we forgotten what we just
learned about where this idea of national Israel being saved
came from and how it pits the Bible against itself?!
Since many quote Joel, let's look at what Joel said about
when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Joel 1:6-12
6) For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without
number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the
cheek teeth of a great lion.
7) He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree:
he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches
thereof are made white.
8) Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the
husband of her youth.
9) The meat offering and the drink offering is cut off from
the house of the LORD; the priests, the LORD's ministers,
mourn.
10) The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn
is wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth.
11) Be ye ashamed, O ye husbandmen; howl, O ye vinedressers,
for the wheat and for the barley; because the harvest of the
field is perished.
12) The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the
pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree,
even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy
is withered away from the sons of men.
Now if the fig tree is Israel, then can we conclude from
this quote from Joel, that Jesus was dried up (v12), even
though He wasn't born yet? After all, didn't Jesus call
Himself the vine (John 15)?
And can we look at v8 and claim that the virgin is mourning
for the destruction of Jesus, given that the church is the
virgin bride and Jesus is the bridegroom (husband)?
And is Israel represented by the wheat and barley (v11)?
I don't see Jesus talking about wheat and barley in Mat 24.
Or is it possible... just possible... that Jesus was simply
using the fig tree in exactly the way He said He was,
which was to tell them that just like they know that summer
is near, when the fig tree puts forth its leaves, that they
should also know that the end was near, when they saw
the signs that Jesus described? I mean after all, isn't
that what Jesus *ACTUALLY SAID*???
Matthew 24:32-33
32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch
is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer
is nigh:
33) So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things,
know that it is near, even at the doors.
And who did He say it to? To some generation, thousands
of years away? Or did He look at them and say, "When
*YOU* see..." ???
And what did He say next?
"Verily I say unto YOU, THIS generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Now that word "verily" doesn't seem to mean much to us,
but in the Greek, it is VERY EMPHATIC! It is as if Jesus
is staking His whole credibility on this one 'time'
statement!
Now you may THINK that what He said before that is all
literal language, but it isn't. Jesus used symbolism. We
can prove this, for example, by looking at a fulfilled
prophecy found in Isaiah 19:1, which tells us about the
time that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt and it
says that God "rode a swift cloud". Now did anyone see
with their eyes, God riding a cloud? No, they didn't!
But "every eye shall see Him", you say? Quote the rest
of that verse (Rev 1:7) and see that it says, "even they
who pierced Him" and that places it in the first century,
not the twenty first!
Read Mat 13:13 and see that the word "see" can also be used
to mean "understand" and also realize that it can't be first
century people resurrected and then see Him, because the
belief is that He is seen coming and THEN the resurrection
happens, so those who pierced Him must still be alive when
He is "seen" coming!
Revelation 22:12, as everyone knows, speaks of His return
in judgment. I will place that verse in between the
following quoted verses, so that you can compare
the wording...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every
man according to his works.
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me,
to give every man according as his work shall be." - Rev 22:12
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom.
No, it is not about the Transfiguration. That was only days
later and all of them were still alive and there was no
coming with the Father's angels, nor any rewarding of
every man according to his works.
No, it is not about the Pentecost. That was only days later
and all but one of them were still alive and there was no
coming with the Father's angels, nor any rewarding of
every man according to his works.
Jesus said that *some* of them (at least one, but not most)
would be alive when it happened. He said He was coming
"quickly".
And let's not forget that we just compared it with
Rev 22:12, which absolutely is about the Second Coming
and the reading is virtually identical!
Now don't ignore the words. Read them and believe,
whether you can understand how, or not.
Anyway, back to the "national Israel in prophecy" subject...
One of the first things we should note, is that while people
today wait for national Israel to be restored, it wasn't
Israel that was prophesied about anyway. They were cut off
a long time ago! Israel and Judah were divided and it was
out of Judah that the Savior would come.
Genesis 49:8-10
8) Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies;
thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son,
thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as
a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10) The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Note that the scepter would not depart FROM JUDAH.
Also note that this was *UNTIL* Shiloh comes, which
we all know is Christ. Christ would come out of the
tribe of Judah and that is when the scepter would pass
from national, to spiritual.
And let us also note that Genesis 49 is about "the last
days" and that nowhere is mentioned "a revived Roman
Empire", nor a "restored Israel". It was about the 12
tribes!
"And Jacob called unto HIS SONS, and said, Gather
yourselves together, that I may tell *YOU* that which
shall befall *YOU* IN THE LAST DAYS.
It is obvious here, when reading what follows, that Jacob
was telling them what would happen with the 12 tribes,
which is what he goes on to specify in Genesis 49 and
which is what the last days were about (the destruction
of the national and the bringing in of the spiritual).
This idea of national Israel being saved, is based on
the concept that Israel must get all of her land. That
this never happened. Did you know that this belief is
not based on the belief that Israel regains her land,
but that she never received all of it and so, God has yet
to fulfill that promise to Israel? Well, it is, so let us
look at the promise that God made to Israel and see if
it has been fulfilled. Certainly, if the Bible says that it
has been, then we should abandon this belief, right?
"For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed forever." - Genesis 13:15
"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,
saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river
of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates"
- Genesis 15:18
Genesis 17:7-8
7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee
and thy seed after thee in their generations for an
everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee.
8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,
the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be
their God.
Now this is an unconditional promise! There is no denying
that! God did not require that Israel fulfill some contract
in order to GET the land. But of course, getting the land
and keeping the land, are two different things. :) God
would give it to them for their possession forever. He also
however, established a covenant with them, that they were
obliged to keep, in order for that gift to be maintained,
which involved His protection and not His punishment.
As we all know, maintaining possession of a gift is quite
different than being given the gift. For example, our
parents can give us a shiny new car and tell us it's ours
forever. But they may also say that if we do not adhere
to the rules, we may lose that car, of our own doing.
Or, we could wrap that car around a telephone pole.
Guess what? No more car. :)
Now what is the sticking word here, for those who await the
national salvation of Israel? Well, that would be the word,
"everlasting", wouldn't it? If God said they would have it
forever, then certainly, they have not had it forever,
right?
But what does that word imply? Can we take it by itself,
out of context and build a doctrine on it? No!
Let us say, for example, that after God said this and after
they came into the land, they said, "No thanks, we don't
want it. See ya later.". What then? Haven't they now
broken the covenant and rejected the gift? Of course
they have!
What is definitely unconditional, is that God would give
them the land. However, He also said that He was entering
into a covenant with them. And a covenant implies a mutual
agreement that both parties must adhere to, or it becomes
void. Thus, God GIVES them the land. However, once they
have the land, they are bound by the covenant. There is no
such thing as a covenant that does not have legal
stipulations!
For example...
"And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations." -
Genesis 17:9
This was about circumcision. Now if man stopped doing this,
does that mean he gets God's CONTINUED blessing in the
matter?
And why don't we seem to get this simple idea of what a
covenant is when discussing God, but we do when discussing
covenants that men make with each other? Doesn't the same
idea hold? Both parties need to uphold their end, or it is
null and void and bad things may follow?
"And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them
unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant."
- Genesis 21:27
Does anyone read this and think, "Abimelech can break it
any time he wants to, but Abraham must uphold his end
anyway, because no matter what Abimelech does, the
covenant is still valid and Abraham should bless him." ???
So here we see that the gift of the land was just that,
a gift. But to maintain that gift, they had to keep the
covenant. This doesn't make God (pardon the phrase)
an Indian giver, not a covenant breaker. Rather, it makes
the Jews the covenant breakers!
So let us now deal with the claim by the modern
Dispensational church, which is that this covenant has still
not been fulfilled and that God has not yet given them all
of their land, because they have not received the land to
"the River of Egypt". This is what this claim that God is
still fulfilling this covenant is based on. But that is
because in their ignorance, the Dispensationalists think
this river is way over in what we now know as Egypt.
But this is not where "the River of Egypt" is. We have
to remember, that Egypt used to control a lot more land
and looking at modern maps and trying to force the Bible
to wrap around them, won't work. (:
According to the ancient maps however, the tale is told
differently.
"The Wadi el-`Arish, known as the 'River of Egypt', formed
the southern boundary of the tribe of Judah, as it did
earlier of the Philistine territory. It drains the seasonal
surplus water from the Wilderness of Paran into the
Mediterranean. South of the Wadi el-`Arish was territory
controlled by Egypt." - Baker's Bible Atlas, p. 31
The River of Egypt is not in what is currently Egypt. It is
in an area of land that Egypt used to control, but no longer
does. Therefore, this claim by the Dispensationalists is
not only irrelevant, but completely and wholly incorrect.
And it flies in the face of what the Bible teaches regarding
this issue also. But since when do the Futurists care what
the Bible says? They are ignorant of God's word and think
the Old Testament should be turned into kindling, except
when they think they have found a passage that supports
their claims (it never does). They never look to what the
whole of Scripture teaches on a given subject. (:
Let us now turn to the Bible and see what it says about
whether or not they had received all of the land that God
had promised them that He would give them.
Joshua 21:43-45
43) And the Lord gave unto Israel *_ALL_* the land which
he swore to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it,
and dwelt therein.
44) And the Lord gave them rest round about, ACCORDING
TO *ALL* THAT HE SWORE UNTO THEIR FATHERS: and
there stood not a man of all their enemies before them;
the Lord delivered *_ALL_* their enemies into their hand.
45) THERE FAILED NOT AUGHT OF ANY GOOD THING
WHICH THE LORD HAD SPOKEN UNTO THE HOUSE OF
ISRAEL; ALL CAME TO PASS.
It is clear here, that God has *ALREADY* fulfilled His
promise! In fact, He did so A LONG TIME AGO, in the days
of Joshua!
But remember that God had said that He would give it to them
forever? Well sure, but let's not forget THE COVENANT.
Let's take a look at what else God said about this subject,
should they transgress the covenant of the Lord.
Joshua 23:14-15
14) And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the
earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls,
that NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED of all the good things
which the Lord your God spoke concerning you; ALL are
come to pass unto you, and NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED
THEREOF.
15) Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things
are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you;
SO SHALL THE LORD BRING UPON YOU ALL EVIL THINGS,
UNTIL HE HAVE *DESTROYED YOU FROM OFF THIS GOOD
LAND* which the Lord your God hath given you.
16) WHEN YE HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE COVENANT of the
Lord your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and
served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; THEN shall
the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, AND YE SHALL
PERISH QUICKLY FROM OFF THE GOOD LAND WHICH HE
HATH GIVEN UNTO YOU.
So here it is clear that when they transgressed the
covenant, that they lost the right to the land. They would
be "destroyed from off this good land". They would,
"perish quickly" from it. So if what the Dispy's believe
is true, then God's a liar!
Now we can surely turn to times in Scripture when God
said that He would return them to the land, if they
repented, but the point I'm making here, is that the concept
of it being "their land forever", was tied to this covenant,
which they did transgress and thereby, lost their "eternal"
"national" right to it.
So when people today are rooting for Israel to blow away
their enemies, they are not acting in a Christian manner,
first of all and secondly, they are thinking, as was shown
earlier, that God's plan is to return to the old system.
They think that Armageddon is the final battle of the whole
world and that Israel wins this war, etc.. But Jesus said
differently, didn't He? Read Luke 21:20-22 and see for
yourselves. And while they claim that Zechariah 14 shows
that Israel will win some future war, the reality is that it
clearly says that Jerusalem would be taken and destroyed.
"But it says that He will turn and fight". Yes, it does.
AFTER JERUSALEM IS DESTROYED! And as every
historian of that era knows, 70 A.D. was the beginning
of the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, it almost did
fall during the War of the Jews (Rome vs Israel). Now
you know what the fatal wound of the beast was, from
which it recovered. The beast was a man AND an empire.
And the heads were rulers also. Nero died during this
war and Rome almost fell apart, but the beast (Rome)
did live on. It did decline steadily though after this war
and it did eventually crumble into nought.
Read Isaiah 62-64 and Zechariah 12-14 and you will see
that what Jesus said lines up perfectly with this.
Israel is "the Israel of God", not national Israel and their
salvation (national Israel's) was to come at the time of
their destruction, when God took the Mosaic system out
of the way and established His Kingdom, which is spiritual,
not physical (Luke 17:20-21 specifically says this). Thus,
their salvation was to be eschatological, not national.
I.e., they were not to be "nationally saved", but rather,
"eschatologically saved". Isn't this the whole thing of it?
Don't we claim that the Jews failed to recognize that their
Messiah came on a spiritual mission??? So why do you
reject that idea now?! Does that make you a hypocrite,
pitting Scripture against itself?! Think about it, please!
And this did happen, in 70 A.D.. Jerusalem was destroyed
and the Temple was torn down, stone by stone. His
Kingdom was established and it is spiritual, as Jesus said
it would be (Luke 17:20-21)! The old Mosaic system was
removed and as every Rabbi knows, Biblical Judaism ended
in 70 A.D.!
And no, the Wailing Wall does not count! It was part of
the foundation and Jesus specified the Temple buildings!
That would be like telling someone who's house was
destroyed in Hurricane Andrew that it didn't really happen,
because gee, look, the cement foundation survived! (:
A foundation is just that.,.. a foundation. One can build
many things on a foundation! And as I said, Jesus
responded regarding the Temple buildings (Mat 24:1;
Mark 13:1)!
There is no "future restoration of national Israel" and no
"third Temple in which sacrifices will be performed and
in which God will live". It is a farce! And it is based on
the idea that JESUS FAILED to establish His Kingdom
and that God has to keep working around what man does!
The covenant that God had with national Israel is over
and has been for a long time!
In fact, even before 70 A.D., Israel was cut off, remember?
Judah was the one that God helped and it was Judah that
would bring forth the Savior. And that was when the concept
of "national" would end. The Bible says so!
Genesis 49:8-10
8) Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies;
thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son,
thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as
a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10) The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Note that the scepter would not depart FROM JUDAH.
Also note that this was *_UNTIL_* Shiloh comes,
which we all know is Christ. Christ would come out of
the tribe of Judah and that is when the scepter would
pass from national, to spiritual.
Take a lesson here folks! Why are you waiting for something
that is not going to happen and that returns us to the old
covenant, Mosaic system?! As Paul said to the church in
Galatia, that was being mislead by the Judaizers, who were
telling them that they also had to honor the Mosaic
system...
"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh?" - Galatians 3:3
And so now, I ask you the same question and hope that
you pick the spiritual and not the physical!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
GODISNOWHERE (now read it again)
Ike E 11/16/09
You're doctrines prove so.
Ike
SwordoZ
"Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hedulm$sr8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Jesus "isn't" the Messiah.
> You're doctrines prove so.
> Ike
SoZ:
Note ... money isn't toilet paper ... your putting your money where your
mouth is?
Ike E 11/23/9
"SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:4b0abfce$0$4062$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>
> "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hedulm$sr8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Jesus "isn't" the Messiah.
>> You're doctrines prove so.
>> Ike
>
> mouth is?
Hey, moron: If the rules of Preterism were TRUE, Jesus COULDN'T BE THE
MESSIAH--that conclusion requires that prophecy be MULTIPLISTIC, as the
prophets and the people who heard them thought they were discussing THEIR
day--and they WERE.
It's only when prophecy is interpreted MULTIPLISTICALLY that one can arrive
at the fact that Jesus is the Messiah.
Now go crawl back under your rock.
Ike
Doug
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in article
<hefanp$n7d$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
Hmm.. are you sure that's a word? Did you make it up?
"MULTIPLISTICALLY - no dictionary results"
--
Doug
SwordoZ
"Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hefanp$n7d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:4b0abfce$0$4062$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>
>> "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hedulm$sr8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Jesus "isn't" the Messiah.
>>> You're doctrines prove so.
>>> Ike
>>
>> Note ... money isn't toilet paper ... your putting your money where your
>> mouth is?
> Hey, moron: If the rules of Preterism were TRUE, Jesus COULDN'T BE THE
> MESSIAH--that conclusion requires that prophecy be MULTIPLISTIC, as the
> prophets and the people who heard them thought they were discussing THEIR
> day--and they WERE.
SoZ:
The rules of scripture ... *not* Preterism which you demonize ... conclude
that Jesus as he scripturally appeared, taught and spoke to the Jew
concerning the "last days" ... was/is the Messiah of Israel.
> It's only when prophecy is interpreted MULTIPLISTICALLY that one can
> arrive at the fact that Jesus is the Messiah.
SoZ:
Sorry ikey - but scripture plainly arrives at that conclusion based on the
reality of the times ... not through the MULTIPLISTIC addling which you
present.
> Now go crawl back under your rock.
SoZ:
Sorry sonny - but that's not my style.
SwordoZ
"Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:wf-dnYpKXrlKx5bW...@sentex.net...
> Doug
SoZ:
No different than any of his other rants, raves and incoherent ramblings.
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hefanp$n7d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b0abfce$0$4062$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>>
>>> "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hedulm$sr8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Jesus "isn't" the Messiah.
>>>> You're doctrines prove so.
>>>> Ike
>>>
>>> Note ... money isn't toilet paper ... your putting your money where your
>>> mouth is?
>
>
>> Hey, moron: If the rules of Preterism were TRUE, Jesus COULDN'T BE THE
>> MESSIAH--that conclusion requires that prophecy be MULTIPLISTIC, as the
>> prophets and the people who heard them thought they were discussing THEIR
>> day--and they WERE.
>
> SoZ:
> The rules of scripture ...
Yo, moron: THESE are the "rules of scripture."
Eze 7:1-6
Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Also, thou son of
man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel:
An end,
the end
is come upon the four corners of the land.
Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and
will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all
thine abominations. And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have
pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall
be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
An evil,
an only evil,
behold,
is come.
An end is come,
the end is come:
it watcheth for thee;
behold, it is come.
Jesus, using the EXACT SAME "rule."
Mt 17:11-13
And Jesus answered and said unto [the Disciples], Elias truly shall
first come [future], and restore all things.
But I say unto you, That Elias is come already [present], and they knew
him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also
the Son of man suffer of them.
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
AGAIN...
Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming [future], and
now is [present], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and
they that hear shall live.
And so on and so forth.
You haven't the foggiest notion of what the "rules" of scripture are.
> *not* Preterism which you demonize
Preterism is OF DEMONS. I don't have to "demonize" it--it's already full of
demons.
> ... conclude that Jesus as he scripturally appeared, taught and spoke to
> the Jew concerning the "last days" ... was/is the Messiah of Israel.
Jesus spoke DUALISTICALLY, just like the prophets before Him, and dualism +
dualism = triunism, oh, clueless one.
>> It's only when prophecy is interpreted MULTIPLISTICALLY that one can
>> arrive at the fact that Jesus is the Messiah.
>
> SoZ:
> Sorry ikey
Be sorry for yourself: Without MULTIPLICITY, Jesus can't even BE the
Messiah--it's NOT IN THE CONTEXT in which the prophecies were fulfilled THE
FIRST TIME.
> - but scripture plainly arrives at that conclusion based on the reality of
> the times ... not through the MULTIPLISTIC addling which you present.
Bullshit. Just like the idiot Dispensationalists, you have to ignore history
to make your nonsense work.
And then you have to do it AGAIN to UNDO Jesus' statements.
>> Now go crawl back under your rock.
>
> SoZ:
> Sorry sonny - but that's not my style.
Your "style" is to slither like the "serpent" that you are.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
I'll pose the same question to you that I pose to the Dispensationalist
idiots: If Jeremiah was only talking about the future, why wasn't he stoned
as a false prophet? And if Jeremiah was only talking about the past, what
was John doing quoting him in Revelation some 600 years later?
Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.
Ike
theologynut
wrote:
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b0b6392$0$4073$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> >news:wf-dnYpKXrlKx5bW...@sentex.net...
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:48:59 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
> >> <hefanp$n7...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
> >>> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:4b0abfce$0$4062$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>
> >>>>news:hedulm$sr8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>>> Jesus "isn't" the Messiah.
> >>>>> You're doctrines prove so.
> >>>>> Ike
>
> >>>> Note ... money isn't toilet paper ... your putting your money where
> >>>> your mouth is?
>
> >>> Hey, moron: If the rules of Preterism were TRUE, Jesus COULDN'T BE THE
> >>> MESSIAH--that conclusion requires that prophecy be MULTIPLISTIC, as the
> >>> prophets and the people who heard them thought they were discussing
> >>> THEIR day--and they WERE.
>
> >>> It's only when prophecy is interpreted MULTIPLISTICALLY that one can
> >>> arrive at the fact that Jesus is the Messiah.
>
> >> Hmm.. are you sure that's a word? Did you make it up?
> >> "MULTIPLISTICALLY - no dictionary results"
> >> Doug
>
> > SoZ:
> > No different than any of his other rants, raves and incoherent ramblings.
>
> I'll pose the same question to you that I pose to the Dispensationalist
> idiots: If Jeremiah was only talking about the future, why wasn't he stoned
> as a false prophet? And if Jeremiah was only talking about the past, what
> was John doing quoting him in Revelation some 600 years later?
>
> Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are right insofar as prophecies like Jeremiah 33 would have the
temple-centric sacrificial system reinstated at the return of the Lord
of Righteousness (Yahweh Zedikenu) to Jerusalem. This can mean any
number of things depending of whether you are Jewish, Christian, or a
bible scholar. The problem arises when you try to fit Jesus the rural
rabbi sage of Galilee into every single messianic prediction that
exists in Hebrew scripture. The Jesus of divine advanced Christology
(wherein Jesus=God and can therefore be tied to every mention of the
Lord in Hebrew scriptures) would have to be everything to all people
at all times--ESPECIALLY AT HIS FIRST INCARNATION. But of course he
wasn't and Jerusalem fell and wars, disease, and starvation continue
to be realities. The writers of the gospels were messianic Jews
hoping against hope that the messianic age was just around the corner
and with it, the Kingdom of Heaven with its "one like a son of man
riding clouds of glory". Jesus became the figurehead upon whom all
those hopes were pinned. These hopes in a single saviour figure
existed before Jesus was born and still exist for orthodox Jews. In a
sense, they still operate for Christians as well, because obviously
the first appearance didn't change anything all that much. Although
alternative realities are hypothetical, maybe, just maybe, things
would have been much worse without Jesus (if he was everything they
described him as being in the first place) but try convincing the six
million Jews who died in the Holocaust that things were better because
Jesus was born.
SwordoZ
"Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hefti0$jdo$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
SoZ:
Because he was speaking accordingly ... "talking about the future" as a
prophet.
>Why would a prophet be "stoned to death" prophesying about the future.
SoZ:
Be grateful you didn't live during that era ... cause you would've been
"stoned to death" and pushing up daises long ago.
Either you've "lost" common sense or you've "never" had it.
> And if Jeremiah was only talking about the past,
SoZ:
You mean a prophet is prohibited to talk about the past in order to set the
stage concerning the future?
Whew ... and you *think* in your own mind your a prophet.
what
> was John doing quoting him in Revelation some 600 years later?
SoZ:
Verification of his (Jeremiah's) prophecies concerning jewish influence
which set the stage for Jersaleum's ultimate demise.
You no-comprenda Jeremiah.
> Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.
SoZ:
FACT - everyone is "ignorant" to some degree in one form or another ... but
the most dangerous ignorance confronting man is *self-induced* ignorance.
SwordoZ
>
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:4b0b6264$0$4046$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>
>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hefanp$n7d$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b0abfce$0$4062$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Ike E 11/16/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hedulm$sr8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Jesus "isn't" the Messiah.
>>>>> You're doctrines prove so.
>>>>> Ike
>>>>
>>>> Note ... money isn't toilet paper ... your putting your money where
>>>> your mouth is?
>>> Hey, moron: If the rules of Preterism were TRUE, Jesus COULDN'T BE THE
>>> MESSIAH--that conclusion requires that prophecy be MULTIPLISTIC, as the
>>> prophets and the people who heard them thought they were discussing
>>> THEIR day--and they WERE.
SoZ:
Yo .... your money's getting a bit smelly.
SoZ: :)
It's done ... it's over ... get used to it ... get a life.
>> *not* Preterism which you demonize
> Preterism is OF DEMONS. I don't have to "demonize" it--it's already full
> of demons.
SoZ:
Your actions reveal the nesting place of demons.
>> ... conclude that Jesus as he scripturally appeared, taught and spoke to
>> the Jew concerning the "last days" ... was/is the Messiah of Israel.
> Jesus spoke DUALISTICALLY, just like the prophets before Him, and dualism
> + dualism = triunism, oh, clueless one.
SoZ: :)
Now your trying to reinvent math. Since when does 2 + 2 = 3?
>>> It's only when prophecy is interpreted MULTIPLISTICALLY that one can
>>> arrive at the fact that Jesus is the Messiah.
>> SoZ:
>> Sorry ikey
> Be sorry for yourself: Without MULTIPLICITY, Jesus can't even BE the
> Messiah--it's NOT IN THE CONTEXT in which the prophecies were fulfilled
> THE FIRST TIME.
SoZ:
What ... to be crucified a second time? LOL
>> - but scripture plainly arrives at that conclusion based on the reality
>> of the times ... not through the MULTIPLISTIC addling which you present.
> Bullshit. Just like the idiot Dispensationalists, you have to ignore
> history to make your nonsense work.
> And then you have to do it AGAIN to UNDO Jesus' statements
SoZ:
No one's ignoring history ... but it's addled reasoning such as yours
concerning "it" is where the problem lies.
.
>>> Now go crawl back under your rock.
>> SoZ:
>> Sorry sonny - but that's not my style.
> Your "style" is to slither like the "serpent" that you are.
SoZ:
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
Ike E 11/23/9
"theologynut" <sharonkath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81b5b24a-c483-4e29...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> You are right insofar as prophecies like Jeremiah 33 would have the
> temple-centric sacrificial system reinstated at the return of the Lord
> of Righteousness (Yahweh Zedikenu) to Jerusalem.
Ah, no.
The temple-centric sacrificial system will be implemented by the children of
the Pharisees LONG before Jesus returns, and it will result in the same
idolatry--only worse--that occurred the first two times.
And then Jesus will destroy it at His second coming.
> This can mean any
> number of things depending of whether you are Jewish, Christian, or a
> bible scholar. The problem arises when you try to fit Jesus the rural
> rabbi sage of Galilee into every single messianic prediction that
> exists in Hebrew scripture.
I don't have to fit something that Jesus fits into in every single Messianic
prophecy in the Bible, given that, apart from the original setting for every
prophecy--Jesus IS the Messiah to whom EVERY prophecy ultimately refers.
> The Jesus of divine advanced Christology
> (wherein Jesus=God
...which is the only "Jesus" there is...
> and can therefore be tied to every mention of the
> Lord in Hebrew scriptures)...
...absolutely...
> would have to be everything to all people
> at all times--ESPECIALLY AT HIS FIRST INCARNATION.
Not exactly, as prophecy is always fulfilled in figures first.
> But of course he
> wasn't
...but of course he "was," "is," and "is to come" Lord God Almighty...
> and Jerusalem fell and wars, disease, and starvation continue
> to be realities.
...situations Jesus will rectify at His second advent...
> The writers of the gospels were messianic Jews
> hoping against hope that the messianic age was just around the corner
> and with it...
Nope.
The writers of the Gospels were Jews who KNEW their Messiah, Jesus Christ,
and expected His return at any moment.
Unfortunately, they didn't pay attention to the dualistic contexts in which
Jesus gave His prophecies, or they would have known that they were only in
the second round of a three-round prophecy.
> the Kingdom of Heaven with its "one like a son of man
> riding clouds of glory".
That would be Jesus.
> Jesus became the figurehead upon whom all
> those hopes were pinned.
Jesus is the figurehead upon which ANY and ALL hopes are pinned, or there
ISN'T any hope.
> These hopes in a single saviour figure
> existed before Jesus was born and still exist for orthodox Jews.
...who are ignorant and clueless...
> In a
> sense, they still operate for Christians as well, because obviously
> the first appearance didn't change anything all that much.
That's because prophecy is ultimately triune, not dualistic.
> Although
> alternative realities are hypothetical, maybe, just maybe, things
> would have been much worse without Jesus (if he was everything they
> described him as being in the first place) but try convincing the six
> million Jews who died in the Holocaust that things were better because
> Jesus was born.
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
The ass kicking that the "Jews who say the are Jews, and are not, but do
lie" will get at the second coming will make the Holocaust look like a
garden party. Those who remain will be finding and burying the bodies for
seven months. [Eze 39:12]
(And you Jesus Seminar morons are HELPING IT HAPPEN, teaching your
antichristian lies that Jesus ISN'T the One and Only Messiah to those
foolish enough to listen to you, INCLUDING the Pharisaical "Rabbis.")
It's just a shame that those few Israelites who are "Israelites indeed" have
had to suffer so much because of the Pharisaical "Rabbis" leading them.
Now take off and come back when you understand who and what Jesus REALLY is.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
Nope: If a form of Jeremiah's prophecies hadn't started IMMEDIATELY,
Jeremiah would have been stoned as a false prophet.
>>Why would a prophet be "stoned to death" prophesying about the future.
>
> SoZ:
> Be grateful you didn't live during that era ... cause you would've been
> "stoned to death" and pushing up daises long ago.
Yeah, that's the price of believing the Word of Truth--and the believers
will be paying it again.
Then comes the retribution.
> Either you've "lost" common sense or you've "never" had it.
I have it.
You don't have a clue.
>> And if Jeremiah was only talking about the past,
>
> SoZ:
> You mean a prophet is prohibited to talk about the past in order to set
> the stage concerning the future?
I mean the past from our perspective, which would be Jeremiah's present,
jackass.
> Whew ... and you *think* in your own mind your a prophet.
Nope.
I'm an analyst, and a teacher.
If I were a prophet, I would have something new to say, but I'm not saying
anything new that people couldn't have figured out for themselves if they
had bothered to take the time.
> what
>> was John doing quoting him in Revelation some 600 years later?
>
> SoZ:
> Verification of his (Jeremiah's) prophecies concerning jewish influence
> which set the stage for Jersaleum's ultimate demise.
Nope.
Jerusalem hasn't REACHED its ultimate demise yet...but it's coming.
> You no-comprenda Jeremiah.
I comprehend just fine.
YOU'RE the one who doesn't have a clue as to how prophecy works, Preterist
idiot.
>> Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.
>
> SoZ:
> FACT - everyone is "ignorant" to some degree in one form or another ...
> but the most dangerous ignorance confronting man is *self-induced*
> ignorance.
That you are.
Nevertheless, the temple "was," the temple "is," and the temple "will be"
again: And the third fall will make the first two falls look like a minor
remodelings.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
LOL
And still the moron has to look RIGHT PAST what Jesus said, and the way He
said it, to keep his moronic Preterist lies.
>>> *not* Preterism which you demonize
>> Preterism is OF DEMONS. I don't have to "demonize" it--it's already full
>> of demons.
>
> SoZ:
> Your actions reveal the nesting place of demons.
No, yours do, you creed-denying blasphemer.
>>> ... conclude that Jesus as he scripturally appeared, taught and spoke
>>> to the Jew concerning the "last days" ... was/is the Messiah of Israel.
>> Jesus spoke DUALISTICALLY, just like the prophets before Him, and dualism
>> + dualism = triunism, oh, clueless one.
>
> SoZ: :)
> Now your trying to reinvent math. Since when does 2 + 2 = 3?
Yo, moron: Old Testament prophecies took us from the "was" to the "is."
Jesus' prophecies take us from the "is" to the "is to come."
Dualism + Dualism = Triunism.
>>>> It's only when prophecy is interpreted MULTIPLISTICALLY that one can
>>>> arrive at the fact that Jesus is the Messiah.
>>> SoZ:
>>> Sorry ikey
>> Be sorry for yourself: Without MULTIPLICITY, Jesus can't even BE the
>> Messiah--it's NOT IN THE CONTEXT in which the prophecies were fulfilled
>> THE FIRST TIME.
>
> SoZ:
> What ... to be crucified a second time? LOL
"Cut off" doesn't have to mean "killed," moron, as, for example, David
said...
Ps 31:22 For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes:
nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto
thee.
Jesus was "cut off" at His first advent by crucifixion.
He'll be "cut off" before His second advent when the churches fully succumb
to antichristianity, and kick Jesus out as the One and Only Christ.
That's why Daniel didn't say "killed."
He used a prophetic term that can be used many ways.
>>> - but scripture plainly arrives at that conclusion based on the reality
>>> of the times ... not through the MULTIPLISTIC addling which you present.
>
>
>> Bullshit. Just like the idiot Dispensationalists, you have to ignore
>> history to make your nonsense work.
>> And then you have to do it AGAIN to UNDO Jesus' statements
>
> SoZ:
> No one's ignoring history
Yes, you are: Every OT prophecy has a HISTORICAL CONTEXT, and a HISTORICAL
FULFILLMENT, FIRST--even if the subject was the prophet himself--BEFORE they
had anything to do with Jesus.
So you have to SKIP OVER Jewish history to make Jesus the Messiah, nevermind
that every prophecy was fulfilled in FIGURES FIRST, AT THAT TIME, BEFORE
they applied to Jesus, which is MULTIPLICITY.
Then you do the same thing with Jesus' own dualistic prophecies.
> ... but it's addled reasoning such as yours concerning "it" is where the
> problem lies.
Nope, it's your HISTORICAL IGNORANCE that begins the problem.
Ask any Jew what any Old Testament prophecy is about, and they'll tell you
about some aspect of Jewish History. AND THEY WOULD BE RIGHT...up to the
point where the historical events ended, but the results didn't come out
right.
>>>> Now go crawl back under your rock.
>>> SoZ:
>>> Sorry sonny - but that's not my style.
>> Your "style" is to slither like the "serpent" that you are.
>
> SoZ:
> And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
We'll see about "no one."
Ike
SwordoZ
> LOL
SoZ:
As you laugh your way into oblivion.
> And still the moron has to look RIGHT PAST what Jesus said, and the way He
> said it, to keep his moronic Preterist lies.
SoZ:
Then Jesus is a "moron" as well.
>>>> *not* Preterism which you demonize
>>> Preterism is OF DEMONS. I don't have to "demonize" it--it's already full
>>> of demons.
>> SoZ:
>> Your actions reveal the nesting place of demons.
> No, yours do, you creed-denying blasphemer.
SoZ:
I don't believe in creeds.
>>>> ... conclude that Jesus as he scripturally appeared, taught and spoke
>>>> to the Jew concerning the "last days" ... was/is the Messiah of Israel.
>>> Jesus spoke DUALISTICALLY, just like the prophets before Him, and
>>> dualism + dualism = triunism, oh, clueless one.
>> SoZ: :)
>> Now your trying to reinvent math. Since when does 2 + 2 = 3?
> Yo, moron: Old Testament prophecies took us from the "was" to the "is."
> Jesus' prophecies take us from the "is" to the "is to come."
SoZ:
Which biblically equates to - Creation "is to come" continually.
> Dualism + Dualism = Triunism.
SoZ:
Good example of kindergarten math. (2 + 2 = 3)
>>>>> It's only when prophecy is interpreted MULTIPLISTICALLY that one can
>>>>> arrive at the fact that Jesus is the Messiah.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> Sorry ikey
>>> Be sorry for yourself: Without MULTIPLICITY, Jesus can't even BE the
>>> Messiah--it's NOT IN THE CONTEXT in which the prophecies were fulfilled
>>> THE FIRST TIME.
>> SoZ:
>> What ... to be crucified a second time? LOL
> "Cut off" doesn't have to mean "killed," moron, as, for example, David
> said...
> Ps 31:22 For I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes:
> nevertheless thou heardest the voice of my supplications when I cried unto
> thee.
> Jesus was "cut off" at His first advent by crucifixion.
SoZ:
No ... speaking of David.
> He'll be "cut off" before His second advent when the churches fully
> succumb to antichristianity, and kick Jesus out as the One and Only
> Christ.
> That's why Daniel didn't say "killed."
SoZ:
Which proves it was Davids supplication ... not that of Jesus.
> He used a prophetic term that can be used many ways.
SoZ:
As used by the "unskilled" ... to further their arguments.
>>>> - but scripture plainly arrives at that conclusion based on the reality
>>>> of the times ... not through the MULTIPLISTIC addling which you
>>>> present.
>>> Bullshit. Just like the idiot Dispensationalists, you have to ignore
>>> history to make your nonsense work.
>>> And then you have to do it AGAIN to UNDO Jesus' statements
>> SoZ:
>> No one's ignoring history
> Yes, you are: Every OT prophecy has a HISTORICAL CONTEXT, and a HISTORICAL
> FULFILLMENT, FIRST--even if the subject was the prophet himself--BEFORE
> they had anything to do with Jesus.
> So you have to SKIP OVER Jewish history to make Jesus the Messiah,
> nevermind that every prophecy was fulfilled in FIGURES FIRST, AT THAT
> TIME, BEFORE they applied to Jesus, which is MULTIPLICITY.
> Then you do the same thing with Jesus' own dualistic prophecies
>> ... but it's addled reasoning such as yours concerning "it" is where the
>> problem lies.
> Nope, it's your HISTORICAL IGNORANCE that begins the problem.
> Ask any Jew what any Old Testament prophecy is about, and they'll tell you
> about some aspect of Jewish History. AND THEY WOULD BE RIGHT...up to the
> point where the historical events ended, but the results didn't come out
> right.
SoZ:
Tis' the history of the Nation of Israel ... Jews merely playing a part
thereof. "Ignorance" concerning the OT is obvious.
>>>>> Now go crawl back under your rock.
>>>> SoZ:
>>>> Sorry sonny - but that's not my style.
>>> Your "style" is to slither like the "serpent" that you are.
>> SoZ:
>> And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.
> We'll see about "no one."
> Ike
SoZ:
The replys you receive "prove that fact". It's quite apparent you have no
shame when others point out your foolishness.
SoZ
SwordoZ
SoZ:
Such as?
>>>Why would a prophet be "stoned to death" prophesying about the future.
>>
>> SoZ:
>> Be grateful you didn't live during that era ... cause you would've been
>> "stoned to death" and pushing up daises long ago.
> Yeah, that's the price of believing the Word of Truth--and the believers
> will be paying it again.
> Then comes the retribution.
SoZ:
That would have made you a "false prophet" according to your own words.
Oh my ... how you get caught up in your own weaving and spinning of deceit.
>> Either you've "lost" common sense or you've "never" had it.
> I have it.
> You don't have a clue.
SoZ:
Self -deception you have ... I agree.
>>> And if Jeremiah was only talking about the past,
>> SoZ:
>> You mean a prophet is prohibited to talk about the past in order to set
>> the stage concerning the future?
> I mean the past from our perspective, which would be Jeremiah's present,
> jackass.
SoZ:
What's the difference .. ickey ... fallaciousness tied you knots?
>> Whew ... and you *think* in your own mind your a prophet.
> Nope.
> I'm an analyst, and a teacher.
SoZ:
Yea ... but in the wrong field.
> If I were a prophet, I would have something new to say, but I'm not saying
> anything new that people couldn't have figured out for themselves if they
> had bothered to take the time.
SoZ:
I have to agree with you ... you are no prophet but you do a disgusting job
attempting to be one.
If something "new" has to be said that "people couldn't figure out" the true
prophet brings it to the table ... which removes your rantings off table.
>> what
>>> was John doing quoting him in Revelation some 600 years later?
>> SoZ:
>> Verification of his (Jeremiah's) prophecies concerning jewish influence
>> which set the stage for Jersaleum's ultimate demise.
> Nope.
> Jerusalem hasn't REACHED its ultimate demise yet...but it's coming.
SoZ:
So is Xmas. It's no more and jewish rabbi's know it.
>> You no-comprenda Jeremiah.
> I comprehend just fine.
> YOU'RE the one who doesn't have a clue as to how prophecy works, Preterist
> idiot.
SoZ:
I'm telling you "how" it works... but your addled mindset proves where
idioticy resides.
>>> Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.
>> SoZ:
>> FACT - everyone is "ignorant" to some degree in one form or another ...
>> but the most dangerous ignorance confronting man is *self-induced*
>> ignorance.
> That you are.
SoZ:
"in one form or another" we all are including you ickey.
> Nevertheless, the temple "was," the temple "is," and the temple "will be"
> again: And the third fall will make the first two falls look like a minor
> remodelings.
SoZ:
Again - Creation "was" in the past ... Creation "is" presently and Creation
"will be" continually.
Apparently you still don't get it.
SoZ
Ike E 11/23/9
Notice how the ass doesn't even TRY to address the way the prophets spoke as
recorded above.
>> And still the moron has to look RIGHT PAST what Jesus said, and the way
>> He said it, to keep his moronic Preterist lies.
>
> SoZ:
> Then Jesus is a "moron" as well.
NO, Jesus spoke DUALISTICALLY.
YOU'RE the moron in this conversation.
>>>>> *not* Preterism which you demonize
>>>> Preterism is OF DEMONS. I don't have to "demonize" it--it's already
>>>> full of demons.
>>> SoZ:
>>> Your actions reveal the nesting place of demons.
>
>
>> No, yours do, you creed-denying blasphemer.
>
> SoZ:
> I don't believe in creeds.
Like I said...
>>>>> ... conclude that Jesus as he scripturally appeared, taught and spoke
>>>>> to the Jew concerning the "last days" ... was/is the Messiah of
>>>>> Israel.
>>>> Jesus spoke DUALISTICALLY, just like the prophets before Him, and
>>>> dualism + dualism = triunism, oh, clueless one.
>>> SoZ: :)
>>> Now your trying to reinvent math. Since when does 2 + 2 = 3?
>
>> Yo, moron: Old Testament prophecies took us from the "was" to the "is."
>> Jesus' prophecies take us from the "is" to the "is to come."
>
> SoZ:
> Which biblically equates to - Creation "is to come" continually.
What an idiot.
IT REFERS TO THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY IN STATEMENTS, bizzaro.
From the destruction of the first temple to the end of the Maccabean Revolt
WAS A STATEMENT.
From the defilement of the temple by Pompey to the end of the Simon bar
Koseba Revolt WAS ANOTHER STATEMENT (only backward from the first).
THE END OF THE AGE WILL BE THE THIRD AND FINAL STATEMENT.
Idiot.
>> Dualism + Dualism = Triunism.
>
> SoZ:
> Good example of kindergarten math. (2 + 2 = 3)
What a moron.
The OT Prophets prophesied about THEIR TIMES FIRST.
Any application to Jesus' first advent IS A SECOND STATEMENT.
And then Jesus, using the SAME TECHNIQUE as THE PROPHETS BEFORE HIM DOUBLED
UP using the "IS NOW/IS COMING" dichotomy.
That's FULFILLMENT (was) to FULFILLMENT (is) to FULFILLMENT (will be),
moron.
[snip]
> As used by the "unskilled" ... to further their arguments.
You are definitely the "unskilled."
[snip the rest of the moron's attempts to look intelligent while making
himself look absolutely stupid]
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:heinb7$ku9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> would have been stoned as a false prophet.
>
> SoZ:
> Such as?
Such as EVERYTHING JEREMIAH SAID, moron (even in its deficiency).
Da 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the
number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the
prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of
Jerusalem.
HISTORY FIRST, oh, clueless one.
[snip the rest of the idiot's attempts to be clever]
Ike
SwordoZ
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:4b0d928f$0$4054$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:heinb7$ku9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> If a form of Jeremiah's prophecies hadn't started IMMEDIATELY, Jeremiah
>>> would have been stoned as a false prophet.
>> SoZ:
>> Such as?
> Such as EVERYTHING JEREMIAH SAID, moron (even in its deficiency).
SoZ:
"Everything" Jeremiah stated happened after the fact.
And your calling GOD "deficient" who spoke "thus saith the Lord" through
Jeremiah?
> Da 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the
> number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the
> prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of
> Jerusalem.
> HISTORY FIRST, oh, clueless one.
SoZ:
That's prophesy and it's historical fulfillment after the fact.
> [snip the rest of the idiot's attempts to be clever]
> Ike
SoZ:
In what way?
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:heldc6$3vh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b0d928f$0$4054$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:heinb7$ku9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> If a form of Jeremiah's prophecies hadn't started IMMEDIATELY, Jeremiah
>>>> would have been stoned as a false prophet.
>>> SoZ:
>>> Such as?
>
>
>> Such as EVERYTHING JEREMIAH SAID, moron (even in its deficiency).
>
> SoZ:
> "Everything" Jeremiah stated happened after the fact.
LOL
Jeremiah was a prophet from before the Babylonian captivity until seven
years or so after the temple was destroyed.
And it came TRUE...once.
But then John quotes Jeremiah about 600 years AFTERWARD as if the historical
events never happened.
That's dualism (which leads to triunism) in prophecy.
Let me know when you have a clue.
[snip]
Ike
SwordoZ
SoZ:
He did? Give us your interpretation of it?
Ike E 11/23/9
What? Are you an idiot?
Jeremiah prophesied from before the fall of the kings of Israel and the
destruction of the temple to the rebuilding of the temple, and all of the
conflicts that would occur along the way.
What? Now you're going to say the Jews didn't rebuild the temple?
Ike
SwordoZ
SoZ
Yea ... whose stating differently?
> What? Now you're going to say the Jews didn't rebuild the temple?
> Ike
SoZ
Why would I say that?
Ike E 11/23/9
Great. So you concur that Jeremiah was a prophet for his time.
Question is, what was John doing quoting Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER the
fact as if he wasn't?
>> What? Now you're going to say the Jews didn't rebuild the temple?
>> Ike
>
> SoZ
> Why would I say that?
Because you usually say the dumbest thing you can think of when you can't
formulate an argument.
Ike
SwordoZ
SoZ
With certainty ... until his time ended in 70 ad.
> Question is, what was John doing quoting Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER the
> fact as if he wasn't?
>> What? Now you're going to say the Jews didn't rebuild the temple?
>>> Ike
>> SoZ
>> Why would I say that?
> Because you usually say the dumbest thing you can think of when you can't
> formulate an argument.
> Ike
SoZ
Dumb question = Dumb reply.
When the argument formulated is dumb a resultant dumb reply should not
surprise. If you can't figure that one out then you apparently are d--b.
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hespop$d9n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[snip]
>> Great. So you concur that Jeremiah was a prophet for his time.
>
> SoZ
> With certainty ... until his time ended in 70 ad.
Nope.
His "time" ended in 160 BC...but that was just the first of three.
Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
Temple of the Lord #1: Destroyed 597 BC.
Temple of the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD.
Temple of the Lord #3: Yet to come.
Let me know when you have a clue as to how prophecy works.
>> Question is, what was John doing quoting Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER the
>> fact as if he wasn't?
>>> What? Now you're going to say the Jews didn't rebuild the temple?
>>>> Ike
>>> SoZ
>>> Why would I say that?
>
>
>> Because you usually say the dumbest thing you can think of when you can't
>> formulate an argument.
>> Ike
>
> SoZ
> Dumb question = Dumb reply.
Nope.
Dumb reply = ignorance of the subject matter.
> When the argument formulated is dumb a resultant dumb reply should not
> surprise. If you can't figure that one out then you apparently are d--b.
Yes, you speak of yourself clearly, and, yes, you are dumb.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch...
Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
Temple of the Lord #1: Destroyed 597 BC.
Temple of the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD.
Temple of the Lord #3: Yet to come.
Hence, the temple "was," "is," and "is to come" (and God will destroy the
third Temple when the Jews abominate it, just as He did the first two).
That's triunism in a nutshell.
Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't the foggiest notion how prophecy
works.
Ike
SwordoZ
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:4b129bb7$0$27232$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hespop$d9n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> [snip]
>>> Great. So you concur that Jeremiah was a prophet for his time.
>> SoZ
>> With certainty ... until his time ended in 70 ad.
> Nope.
> His "time" ended in 160 BC...but that was just the first of three.
SoZ
and pigs fly.
> Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
> temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
>
> Temple of the Lord #1: Destroyed 597 BC.
> Temple of the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD.
> Temple of the Lord #3: Yet to come.
> Let me know when you have a clue as to how prophecy works.
SoZ
You have the "gift" of blindness. What happens when people lie (?) ... they
forgot what they lie about yesterday. I will prove the untruthfulness within
you and the falliciouness of your prophetic ramblings.
>>> Question is, what was John doing quoting Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER the
>>> fact as if he wasn't?
>>>> What? Now you're going to say the Jews didn't rebuild the temple?
>>>>> Ike
>>>> SoZ
>>>> Why would I say that?
>>> Because you usually say the dumbest thing you can think of when you
>>> can't formulate an argument.
>>> Ike
>> SoZ
>> Dumb question = Dumb reply.
> Nope.
> Dumb reply = ignorance of the subject matter.
>> When the argument formulated is dumb a resultant dumb reply should not
>> surprise. If you can't figure that one out then you apparently are d--b.
> Yes, you speak of yourself clearly, and, yes, you are dumb.
SoZ
:)
> Meanwhile, back on the ranch...
SoZ
and continue self-deceit.
> Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
> temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
> Temple of the Lord #1: Destroyed 597 BC.
> Temple of the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD.
> Temple of the Lord #3: Yet to come.
SoZ
It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple of
the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
Now ... note ike's response concerning the SECOND iteration [destruction]
for the record as stated in message sent 1/05/09 as follows:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
SoZ
Oh ... note the difference in what ike states in reply dated 1/05/09 and
what ike states in reply dated 11/23/09.
[Reply dated 1/05/09 - DIDN"T culminate in 70 ad]
[Reply dated 11/23/09 - Temple of the Lord #2:
Destroyed 70 AD]
Note - Ike claims on 1/05/09 the SECOND iteration didn't culminate in 70 AD
... ten months later Ike claims on 11/23/09 the SECOND iteration was 70 AD.
>It culminated in
> 136 AD, when the Simon bar Cochba revolt (prophesied by Jesus) CONCLUDED
> WITH THE JEWS WINDING UP RIGHT BACK WHERE THEY STARTED THANKS TO HADRIAN'S
> DECREE KICKING THE JEWS OFF THE TEMPLE MOUNT (as it is to this day),
> RESETTING THE PROPHECIES BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
SoZ
Note the "flip flop" concerning ike's reasong after ten months.
[On 1/05/09 ike stated "the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD"
but ... "it culminated in
136 AD, when the Simon bar Cochba revolt (prophesied by Jesus) CONCLUDED]
Ike ... your not as slick as you think you are. How come the 136 AD date
disappeared? .
An addled mind attempting to prophetically interpret scripture is akin to a
child playing with dynamite ... it's going to blow up in one's face one day.
The moral of the story ...prevaricators forget the prevarications commited
yesterday.
> Ignorant dolt.
SoZ
The record reveals who the "Ignorant dolt" is who prevaricates about the
past.
> Hence, the temple "was," "is," and "is to come" (and God will destroy the
> third Temple when the Jews abominate it, just as He did the first two).
SoZ
The preacher saith .... Creation "was" in the past ... Creation "is"
presently and Creation "is" to continue into the future.
> That's triunism in a nutshell.
> Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't the foggiest notion how prophecy
> works.
> Ike
SoZ
:)
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hf0112$86s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b129bb7$0$27232$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hespop$d9n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> [snip]
>>>> Great. So you concur that Jeremiah was a prophet for his time.
>>> SoZ
>>> With certainty ... until his time ended in 70 ad.
>> Nope.
>> His "time" ended in 160 BC...but that was just the first of three.
>
> SoZ
> and pigs fly.
Gee, such devastating rhetoric.
FACT: Everything Jeremiah said was supposed to happen happened (to the
extent that it was supposed to happen) when the temple was rebuilt.
>> Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
>> temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
>>
>> Temple of the Lord #1: Destroyed 597 BC.
>> Temple of the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD.
>> Temple of the Lord #3: Yet to come.
>> Let me know when you have a clue as to how prophecy works.
>
> SoZ
> You have the "gift" of blindness. What happens when people lie (?) ...
> they forgot what they lie about yesterday. I will prove the untruthfulness
> within you and the falliciouness of your prophetic ramblings.
Notice how Satan hurls accusations while ignoring the facts.
There "was" a temple that was destroyed; there "is" a temple that was
destroyed; there "will be" a temple that will be destroyed.
What part of "three times" don't you get?
>>>> Question is, what was John doing quoting Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER
>>>> the fact as if he wasn't?
>>>>> What? Now you're going to say the Jews didn't rebuild the temple?
>>>>>> Ike
>>>>> SoZ
>>>>> Why would I say that?
>>>> Because you usually say the dumbest thing you can think of when you
>>>> can't formulate an argument.
>>>> Ike
>>> SoZ
>>> Dumb question = Dumb reply.
>> Nope.
>> Dumb reply = ignorance of the subject matter.
>>> When the argument formulated is dumb a resultant dumb reply should not
>>> surprise. If you can't figure that one out then you apparently are d--b.
>> Yes, you speak of yourself clearly, and, yes, you are dumb.
>
> SoZ
> :)
>
>
>> Meanwhile, back on the ranch...
>
> SoZ
> and continue self-deceit.
The self-deceit is all yours, fraud: Jeremiah spoke of THREE temples, and
TWO of them ARE PAST.
>> Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
>> temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
>
>> Temple of the Lord #1: Destroyed 597 BC.
>> Temple of the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD.
>> Temple of the Lord #3: Yet to come.
>
> SoZ
> It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
I've told no lie here.
> Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple
> of the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
Which is precisely right.
> Now ... note ike's response concerning the SECOND iteration [destruction]
> for the record as stated in message sent 1/05/09 as follows:
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> "Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
>> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
It didn't. The destruction of the second temple wasn't the end of the story.
The story continued through the Simon bar Cochba Revolt, which started
PRECISELY 62 years after the destruction of the second temple, and ended 3
1/2 years later.
MOST important, the JEWS WOUND UP RIGHT BACK WHERE THE FIRST ITERATION
STARTED--EXILED, AND WITHOUT A TEMPLE.
Jesus even PROPHESIED of this when He said "I come in My Father's Name, me
you reject; another will come in his own name, him you'll accept."
I know what I said. Just because YOU'RE ignorant doesn't mean everyone else
is.
And the fact is Jeremiah referred to three temples (horizontally,
vertically, and perpendicularly).
Two are past, the "was" and "is."
One is "yet to come."
[snip]
>> That's triunism in a nutshell.
>> Thanks for demonstrating that you haven't the foggiest notion how
>> prophecy works.
And now you've proven it.
Ike
SwordoZ
>
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:4b13eef7$0$26988$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>
>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hf0112$86s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b129bb7$0$27232$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hespop$d9n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> [snip]
SoZ
Amazing how ike evades continually the particulars of discussions by
[sniping] out taht which reveals fallacious prevaricating of truth.
Let the record stand as stated below.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SoZ
It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple of
the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
Now ... note ike's response concerning the SECOND iteration [destruction]
for the record as stated in message sent 1/05/09 as follows:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
SoZ
Oh ... note the difference in what ike states in reply dated 1/05/09 and
what ike states in reply dated 11/23/09.
[Reply dated 1/05/09 - DIDN"T culminate in 70 ad]
[Reply dated 11/23/09 - Temple of the Lord #2:
Destroyed 70 AD]
> Ignorant dolt.
>>>>> Great. So you concur that Jeremiah was a prophet for his time.
>>>> SoZ
>>>> With certainty ... until his time ended in 70 ad.
>>> Nope.
>>> His "time" ended in 160 BC...but that was just the first of three.
> Ignorant dolt.
SoZ
The record reveals who the "Ignorant dolt" is who prevaricates about the
past.
> Hence, the temple "was," "is," and "is to come" (and God will destroy the
> third Temple when the Jews abominate it, just as He did the first two).
SoZ
The preacher saith .... Creation "was" in the past ... Creation "is"
presently and Creation "is" to continue into the future.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> Let the record stand as stated below.
Let it. It's perfectly consistent, despite your attempts to create
inconsistency.
> It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
No lie told.
> Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple
> of
> the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
That's not exactly what Ike said.
> "Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>
>> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
>> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
[snip]
So where is the inconsistency?
The destruction of the second temple was PART of the second iteration, but
it wasn't the END of it.
The end was the Simon bar Cochba Revolt which resulted in the Jews winding
up right back where they started--exiled, and without a temple, which resets
Daniel's prophecy right back to the beginning (not the end, as the
Dipsysensationalists teach).
[snip]
> Note the "flip flop" concerning ike's reasong after ten months.
There's no "flip flop:" The same thing I say today is the same thing I said
ten months ago, which is the same thing I said five years ago.
It's not my problem you're dense.
First iteration: From the destruction of the first temple (actually, from
God's decree as given by Jeremiah, concluding in 580 BC) to the end of the
Maccabean Revolt.
Second iteration: From the defilement by Pompey in 63 BC to the end of the
Simon bar Cochba Revolt in 136 AD, INCLUDING the DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND
TEMPLE.
Third iteration: Yet to come.
Let me knew when you get a clue, oh, clueless one.
Ike
SwordoZ
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:4b14080a$0$27000$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
> [snip]
>> Let the record stand as stated below.
> Let it. It's perfectly consistent, despite your attempts to create
> inconsistency.
>> It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
> No lie told.
>> Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple
>> of
>> the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
> That's not exactly what Ike said.
>> "Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
>>> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
> [snip]
> So where is the inconsistency?
Within your stated reply as was posted on 11/23/09.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SoZ
It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple of
the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
Now ... note ike's response concerning the SECOND iteration [destruction]
for the record as stated in message sent 1/05/09 as follows:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
SoZ
Oh ... note the difference in what ike states in reply dated 1/05/09 and
what ike states in reply dated 11/23/09.
[Reply dated 1/05/09 - DIDN"T culminate in 70 ad]
[Reply dated 11/23/09 - Temple of the Lord #2:
Destroyed 70 AD]
Note - Ike claims on 1/05/09 the SECOND iteration didn't culminate in 70 AD
... ten months later Ike claims on 11/23/09 the SECOND iteration was 70 AD.
>It culminated in
> 136 AD, when the Simon bar Cochba revolt (prophesied by Jesus) CONCLUDED
> WITH THE JEWS WINDING UP RIGHT BACK WHERE THEY STARTED THANKS TO HADRIAN'S
> DECREE KICKING THE JEWS OFF THE TEMPLE MOUNT (as it is to this day),
> RESETTING THE PROPHECIES BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
SoZ
Note the "flip flop" concerning ike's reasong after ten months.
[On 1/05/09 ike stated "the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD"
but ... "it culminated in
136 AD, when the Simon bar Cochba revolt (prophesied by Jesus) CONCLUDED]
Ike ... your not as slick as you think you are. How come the 136 AD date
disappeared? .
An addled mind attempting to prophetically interpret scripture is akin to a
child playing with dynamite ... it's going to blow up in one's face one day.
Truism: Prevaricators forget the prevarications yesterday when
prevaricating today.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> The destruction of the second temple was PART of the second iteration, but
> it wasn't the END of it.
> The end was the Simon bar Cochba Revolt which resulted in the Jews winding
> up right back where they started--exiled, and without a temple, which
> resets Daniel's prophecy right back to the beginning (not the end, as the
> Dipsysensationalists teach).
> [snip]
SoZ
LOL!
How could it have been part of the Temple when the Temple was COMPLETELY
destroyed to it's foundation in 70 AD?
As I've stated ... "tell a lie yesterday ... forget what you've said today
... and tomorrow lie about what you said yesterday." Nothing more than a
circle of prevaricating.
Your response is like a"child" getting caught with a mouth full of cookies
and his hand in the cookie jar as mom says, ... "Stealing cookies ... naw
mom .. just counting them"? What a line of bull dust.
>> Note the "flip flop" concerning ike's reasong after ten months.
> There's no "flip flop:" The same thing I say today is the same thing I
> said ten months ago, which is the same thing I said five years ago.
> It's not my problem you're dense.
SoZ
"Consistency is not one of your strengths".
> First iteration: From the destruction of the first temple (actually, from
> God's decree as given by Jeremiah, concluding in 580 BC) to the end of the
> Maccabean Revolt.
> Second iteration: From the defilement by Pompey in 63 BC to the end of the
> Simon bar Cochba Revolt in 136 AD, INCLUDING the DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND
> TEMPLE.
> Third iteration: Yet to come.
> Let me knew when you get a clue, oh, clueless one.
> Ike
SoZ
Bull dust.
Let the record stand as stated.
SoZ
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hf26e9$g1g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b14080a$0$27000$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>> [snip]
>>> Let the record stand as stated below.
>> Let it. It's perfectly consistent, despite your attempts to create
>> inconsistency.
>>> It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
>> No lie told.
>>> Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple
>>> of
>>> the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
>> That's not exactly what Ike said.
>>> "Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
>>>> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
>>>> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
>> [snip]
>> So where is the inconsistency?
>
> Within your stated reply as was posted on 11/23/09.
Nope.
Nothing inconsistent there.
You just can't read for shit.
Guess you'll have to try again.
Ike
SwordoZ
SoZ
Let the record stand as stated below.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SoZ
It's amazing how individuals like "ike" get caught up in their own lies.
Ike alleges above the "SECOND" iteration [destruction] was the - "Temple of
the Lord #2: Destroyed 70 AD".
Now ... note ike's response concerning the SECOND iteration [destruction]
for the record as stated in message sent 1/05/09 as follows:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"Ike15" <xeickleb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:gjld12$j5i$1...@reader.motzarella.org...
> Which is the one that "is," but not the one that "was" or "is to come."
> Oh, and the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD."
SoZ
Oh ... note the difference in what ike states in reply dated 1/05/09 and
what ike states in reply dated 11/23/09.
[Reply dated 1/05/09 - DIDN"T culminate in 70 ad]
[Reply dated 11/23/09 - Temple of the Lord #2:
Destroyed 70 AD]
Note - Ike claims on 1/05/09 the SECOND iteration didn't culminate in 70 AD
... ten months later Ike claims on 11/23/09 the SECOND iteration was 70 AD.
>It culminated in
> 136 AD, when the Simon bar Cochba revolt (prophesied by Jesus) CONCLUDED
> WITH THE JEWS WINDING UP RIGHT BACK WHERE THEY STARTED THANKS TO HADRIAN'S
> DECREE KICKING THE JEWS OFF THE TEMPLE MOUNT (as it is to this day),
> RESETTING THE PROPHECIES BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
SoZ
Note the "flip flop" concerning ike's reasong after ten months.
[On 1/05/09 ike stated "the SECOND iteration DIDN'T "culminate in 70 AD"
but ... "it culminated in
136 AD, when the Simon bar Cochba revolt (prophesied by Jesus) CONCLUDED]
Ike ... your not as slick as you think you are. How come the 136 AD date
disappeared? .
An addled mind attempting to prophetically interpret scripture is akin to a
child playing with dynamite ... it's going to blow up in one's face one day.
The moral of the story ...prevaricators forget the prevarications commited
yesterday.
Ike E 11/23/9
which is what I said five years ago.
It's no wonder you can't understand the Bible; you can't even understand
basic English.
Ike
SwordoZ
SoZ
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
SoZ
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hf4t3q$pp1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> You really are quite dense. What I say today is what I said ten months
>> ago, which is what I said five years ago.
>> It's no wonder you can't understand the Bible; you can't even understand
>> basic English.
>> Ike
>
> SoZ
>
> Let the record stand as stated below.
Let it.
Nothing I've said in these matters is inconsistent, and anyone with any
reading ability at all can see that.
You, however, being illiterate...
[snippeth]
Ike
SwordoZ
>
> "SwordoZ" <mar...@enter.net> wrote in message
> news:4b1678a4$0$26995$cd3e...@news.enter.net...
>>
>> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hf4t3q$pp1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> You really are quite dense. What I say today is what I said ten months
>>> ago, which is what I said five years ago.
>>> It's no wonder you can't understand the Bible; you can't even understand
>>> basic English.
>>> Ike
>> SoZ
>> Let the record stand as stated below.
> Let it.
SoZ
Ok ... let the record stand as stated below.
Ike E 11/23/9
Nothing I wrote above is inconsistant at all.
You're just too stupid to understand it.
Ike
Pastor Dave
Let us first pray and then examine this and see how we must
abandon the belief of Dispensationalism, which says that God
failed to bring His word to pass and teaches that Jesus
failed in His mission. I'm not saying this because of
my own beliefs. That is what Dispensationalism teaches.
That Jesus came to establish an Earthly kingdom and failed.
Let us first look at some ancient quotes...
"Having in remembrance, therefore, this saving commandment
and all those things which have come to pass for us:
the Cross, the Grave, the Resurrection on the third day,
the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand,
and the second and glorious Coming" - St. Chrysostom's
Liturgy (4th century)
"Tis evident that when Christ speaks of his coming;
his being revealed; his coming in his Kingdom; or
his Kingdom�s coming; He has respect to his appearing
in those great works of his Power Justice and Grace,
which should be in the Destruction of Jerusalem and
other extraordinary Providences which should attend it."
- Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
"This being so, then the words relating to a personal
return of Jesus are to be taken as pointing to the
Destruction of Jerusalem (Mat 10:23; 16:28)."
- Philip Schaff (19th century)
Please see:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html
...for further comments about historic views of the
2nd Coming.
Now on to the subject at hand...
Did you know that what is now taught by the church...
Dispensationalism and "the Rapture", are taught because
of one belief? And do you know what that belief is?
It is the belief that the Messiah FAILED! That's right!
The belief that THE MESSIAH FAILED!!!
Not too many "Dispensationalists" realize that their belief
is based on the idea that the Messiah came to establish
His Kingdom and failed to do it, causing the Jews to reject
Him and so, His Kingdom was postponed.
Darby gave us popularized Dispensationalism. And
no one can deny that it was after Darby, that Christian
colleges began springing up that taught this idea of
Dispensationalism. Of course, Scofield, Ryrie, et al,
helped to popularize this system.
But how can they claim that the Lord failed?!
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish
that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing
whereto I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11
That which He pleased. Hmmm...
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; he hath put Him
to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand."
- Isaiah 53:10
It seems to me that what pleased the Lord, was for His Son
to be rejected and to make Him an offering for our sin.
Dispensationalism is built on the idea that God was wrong
and that these two passages are lies. And yet, those who
buy into this false theology, which is what all doctrines
that put off the Lord's Kingdom are based on, claim to
be serving God. How can that be?!
Darby believed that previous dispensations had failed and
that the church also had failed and that only a remnant of
it would be saved and of course, this "remnant" consisted
of his own followers, known as, "the Assembly" and he also
speculated that the church would be replaced with a revived
national Israel. Hmmm... Sound familiar to what you are
now waiting for??? National Israel to be saved? Hmmm?
Dispensationalism believes that the purpose of the first
advent of Jesus Christ was to offer an earthly Kingdom
to the Jews. This Kingdom would reinstate the Old Testament
legal system and it's expansion to the entire world under
the Messiah.
Does this sound familiar to you? It should. What you
believe is a reworking of this. (:
When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ and His Kingdom offer,
Plan B went into effect and Christ went to the cross to
initiate the dispensation of Grace and the "mystery church".
Had Israel received her King there would have been no cross
and no Gospel!
That is what your belief is based on. (:
So what if Jews had accepted the offer? Then what of the
prophecies pointing to Christ's atoning death? Once again,
we have a belief that God's word could come back void
and one which seeks to make the cross a consolation prize!
Darby believed that the church is just a "parenthesis" in
God's divine plan, which is for national Israel (words in
brackets and parenthesis added for clarification only).
"The Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no
place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive
parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's
earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give
a fuller character and meaning to them (the Jews)." - Darby
So according to Darby, man "interrupted" God's plan to
establish a physical kingdom for the Jews. Interesting,
huh?
But *you* don't believe this, you say? Then why are you
waiting for a rebuilt Temple, complete with animal
sacrifices and a saved national Israel? Have you taken
the time to realize just how messed up that belief is?
1) God sets up the system of animal sacrifices.
2) God sends His Son to die on the cross as a ONE TIME
sacrifice for our sins.
3) God decides that what is necessary, is to ordain a
rebuilt Temple in which animal sacrifices are performed
and then later, Jesus moves in there and rules from
there.
Say what?!? God sends His Son to die on the cross as
a one time sacrifice, so that He can go back to animal
sacrifices?!?
And this all means that somehow God maintains dual
covenants. One with national Israel and one with the
church. How else can the church be the saved and
national Israel be saved?
Yet the Bible says...
"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." - Galatians 3:28
And the Bible says that there is no more "national Israel",
as far as Biblical salvation is concerned. Paul showed that
the prophecies related to God's church and that "Israel" is
symbolic of His church, "the Israel of God".
Galatians 6:15-16
15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16) And as many as walk according to this rule,
peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the
Israel of God.
Now if this is true, how can it be that God is looking
to save *NATIONAL* Israel?
And didn't Paul warn the church in Galatia not to return
to Judaism? Didn't he call the idea of following Christ
and the Law "returning to the beggarly elements"?
And didn't he call them "foolish" for wanting to do this?
3:1) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,
that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes
Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified
among you?
3:2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3:3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit,
are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4:9) But now, after that ye have known God, or rather
are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and
beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in
bondage?
So again I ask, how can you be waiting for God to save
national Israel, given these Biblical facts?
Well, many would quote the following passages from Romans.
Before quoting them though, I would submit that to do so
and to take the stance that they do, is to pit Scripture
against itself. How can the passages quoted above be true
*AND* what they believe be true? Huh???
Romans 11:25-26a
25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26a) And so all Israel shall be saved
Now at first glance, given how we are trained to read it,
it seems as if what is believed today, is right. That God
saves part of Israel, then some Gentiles, then goes back
and saves all of national Israel. But given what we read
from Galatians, I would suggest a different way of
reading it.
You probably read it as follows...
1) It says "in part" and so, some Jews are saved.
2) Then the Gentiles are brought in.
3) Then God goes back and saves all of national Israel.
But that doesn't really make any sense. And the question
here is, what does Paul mean by "all Israel"? That is the
key here, isn't it? And we will look at that further down.
And note that it doesn't say, "and then all Israel...".
Rather, it says, "and so all Israel...". That word "so"
from the Greek, means "in this manner". In other
words, it is saying that some Jews would be saved,
then the fulness of the Gentiles (whatever amount
that was) and IN THAT MANNER, all Israel would
be saved!
So try reading it with that in mind. The way I see it...
1) Many Jews were saved (the first century church
started out Jewish and was almost exclusively Jewish
for the first 3 1/2 years after Pentecost).
2) Israel was blinded, but only in part, so that the
Gentiles could be brought in (this is when the Apostle Paul
shook the dust off of him at the Jews and went to the
Gentiles and became the Apostle to the Gentiles). So some
Jews were still being saved and the fullness of the Gentiles
was being brought in.
3) Once the fullness of the Gentiles was brought in,
THEN, "all Israel" was "saved".
Some Jews are saved and some Gentiles are saved.
*THEN*, "all Israel", *IS* saved.
God started with the Jews and Scripture shows, that when
they rejected the Gospel, that it was brought out to the
Gentiles. The Jews had their chance. They said no. (:
That does not mean that no Jews can be saved. It does
however mean that this concept of "national salvation"
is a farce and quite frankly, it makes joke out of
Scripture. Or have we not read that "there is neither Jew,
or Gentile" in Christ? How can that be true, if God
is preferencing national Israel? That simply does not
make sense. (:
The "blindness" happened "in part" to national Israel,
so that the fullness of the Gentiles could come in. Since
it does say, "in part", this does not mean that no Jews
could be saved during that time, so yes, they had their
opportunity.
Most are assuming that he means that some Jews are saved
and some Gentiles are saved and then God goes back to
national Israel and saves it, thereby forcing every single
Jew on the planet to be saved.
That would mean that the blindness would have to happen
to national Israel AS A WHOLE. And yet, we know that
there were some Jews still being saved. In fact, it was
mostly Jews.
Paul was not saying that the whole of national Israel was
blinded. He said, "in part". And what would be the point
of that? If He's going to save all of national Israel
anyway, why save some Jews first and then some Gentiles
and then the rest of the Jews? Huh?! This has God
proceeding in a non-sensical manner! (:
We must stop taking passages out of context, for it is then
that they do not read as they were meant. Looking in
THE SAME LETTER, we can see that Paul discounted the
idea of "national Israel" as being what he was talking
about.
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
- Romans 9:6b
Now how can it be that God is going to save national Israel,
when the Scriptures tell us that not everyone who is born
into national Israel, is of Israel? Therefore, it cannot be
"national Israel" that was being discussed as being saved
(although some of it would be, as Paul said).
Do you not see that when this claim is made, that by
default, one is claiming that it is circumcision that is the
key and not faith in Christ, because it ends up saying that
God is going to save national Israel, regardless if they
believe or not and btw, as a side note, that also fries
the "free will" belief, if you have one. :)
Let us read it again, with Romans 9:6b (quoted above) in mind...
"For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own
opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel
will be saved" - Romans 11:25-26a
The "shall be" is not future tense from the point of time
after the fullness of the Gentiles came in. It was future
tense to the point in time that Paul was writing it and
present tense to the point in time that the fullness of
the Gentiles had come in.
And now we can see that it reads quite differently.
Unless of course, you do think that God was acting
in a non-sensical manner? Surely not, right? :)
"Come, let us REASON TOGETHER, saith the Lord."
Paul is saying that some Jews are saved and some Gentiles
are saved and once the fullness of the Gentiles had come in,
AT THAT POINT, "all Israel shall be saved".
How can this be said? Easy! The true Israel is *NOT*
"national Israel". It is "the Israel of God", remember?
Dispensationalists are confused about what the true
"Israel" is and it was the true Israel that God was
going to save, amen?
To say otherwise, is to pit the Bible against itself.
Namely, for example, it is to pit Romans 11:25-26 against
both Romans 9:6b and Galatians 6:15-16.
Furthermore, it is to pit it against more passages!
What else does Paul say in Romans?
"Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel; Though the number
of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work,
and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work
will the Lord make upon the earth." - Romans 9:27-28
Note: A REMNANT will be saved, not all of national Israel!!!
And let us look at Romans 11, which is where the verses
come from, that the Dispy's think prove their case,
to give it some context...
Romans 11:5,25-26a
5) Even so then at this present time also there is
a remnant according to the election of grace.
25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
26a) And so all Israel shall be saved
Now how can it be "a remnant" and be "all of national
Israel" at the same time??? Hello??? :)
It says, "and SO all Israel...", i.e., "and IN THIS MANNER".
It does NOT say, "And THEN all Israel shall be saved"!!!
Shouldn't we be taking the time to think this through???
Or is our vanity so great, that we will believe *anything*,
if it means that we can claim that it's all about us today?!
Darby clearly believed that it was up to man, what would
happen and so, God, in His grace (according to Darby),
kept adding "dispensations", to continue to give man a
chance. God was merely "interfering" with what man
was doing, bringing in these new "dispensations" and
each time, man failed and so, God had to keep bringing
in more dispensations.
Now doesn't this mean that God simply couldn't get it
right and that man is running the show, making God
contuanually rework His plans? How can we trust our
Bibles, if that is true?!
"...the dispensations themselves all declare some leading
principles or interference of God, some condition in which
He has placed man, principles which in themselves are
everlastingly sanctioned of God, but in the course of these
dispensations placed responsibility in the hands of man for
the display and discovery of what he was, and the bringing
in their infallible establishment in Him to whom the glory
of them all rightly belonged.....in every instance, there
was a total and immediate failure as regarded man (sic),
however the patience of God might tolerate and carry on
by grace the dispensation in which man thus failed in the
outset; and further, that there is no instance of the
restoration of a dispensation afforded us, though there
might be partial revivals of it through faith."
Of course, this makes God *reactive* to what man decides,
instead of the other way around. And Scripture may or
may not be fulfilled, is the inevitable conclusion reached.
I.e., God sets a plan in motion, man fails to accept it and
so, God adds another "dispensation" out of His grace and
there is no way to recapture that previous dispensation.
Now this might not be so bad, except that Darby believes,
as I previously stated, that it also means that God has
failed to establish what He stated, since Darby believes
that the reason the Messiah came, was to establish an
Earthly kingdom and that He failed to do so and so, here
we are, in another "dispensation", which has also failed
btw and so, now we wait for national Israel to be
established again, as God's people. So God's plans were
a waste of time and He will end up going in a big circle. (:
Now as I said, look at what it is YOU believe and you'll
see a lot of what Darby said in it. That is because what
you believe came from what Darby, et al, popularized.
But for me, these things only serve to remind me of what
the Lord Jesus Christ *actually* said, which flies in the
face of all of this! Jesus said that He came for the
purpose of dying and being raised. So how could God's
purpose have failed? And when did Jesus EVER preach
an *Earthly* kingdom? Can anyone show me even one
passage, in which Jesus preached a *physical*, *Earthly*
kingdom? Can anyone show me even one passage in
which Jesus preached the saving of all of national Israel,
or even that He came then to establish an Earthly kingdom?
So how does the teaching of Darby and most in the modern
church compare with what Jesus said, when we look at how
He answered the question of whether or not a physical
kingdom would come, since that is exactly what the Pharisees
were asking about (and note that Jesus did not say,
"But later it will be.")?
Luke 17:20-21
20) Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when
the Kingdom of God would come, He answered them
and said, The kingdom of God does not come with
observation;
21) Nor will they say, See here!, or See there!.
For indeed, the Kingdom of God is within you.
The word "observation" is translated from a Greek word.
Parateresis - Inspection, that is, ocular evidence
Ocular = Of or relating to the eye; the sense of sight.
So let's compare what Jesus said, to what Darby and
most today claim about this.
Jesus: The Kingdom of God does *NOT* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Most: The Kingdom of God *WILL* come with observation
(seeing by the human eye).
Jesus: They will *NOT* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Most: They *WILL* be able to point at it and say,
"Look! There it is!".
Let us note that Jesus NEVER, EVER taught a physical Kingdom
of God on Earth, that people could see with the eye and
point at and say, "Look! There it is!". NEVER AND NOT
ONCE!
So when we see the claim that what they read elsewhere
in the Scriptures proves their claim, they are really saying
that Jesus was wrong and they are pitting the Bible against
itself! (:
Quite simply, they are failing to see the typology of the
Old Testament and they are failing to see that the
prophecies of a "New Jerusalem" (Isaiah 65:17-25,
for example) are not physical truths, but spiritual truths
that would later be revealed! They are reading the
Scriptures "with a veil on".
Jesus' statement was VERY SIMPLE AND CLEAR! It was not
some "super fantastic, sci-fi, complex" statement, made up
of "reverse language Bible speak"! Yet Darby and those like
him want us to believe that we are to interpret what Jesus
said, as meaning the exact opposite of what He did say. (:
And not only this, but that this "kingdom" will be a Jewish
national kingdom. So where does that leave the church?
Now you see why Darby reached the conclusion he did.
Either it is the church, or it is national Israel. How can
it be both? It can't!!!
Now who are we to believe? Darby? Those in the modern
church who twist even his teaching and claim a dual kingdom?
Or Jesus?
I know Who I pick! :)
But what of national Israel? What place does it hold
in Biblical prophecy today? I would submit.. NONE!
I know that seems strange and even "anti-Biblical" to some,
but the cold hard fact is, they have no place left in
prophecy. Many will point to the "fig tree" statement
by Jesus. But where does Jesus say that the fig tree
is national Israel? And have we forgotten what we just
learned about where this idea of national Israel being saved
came from and how it pits the Bible against itself?!
Since many quote Joel, let's look at what Joel said about
when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Joel 1:6-12
6) For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without
number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the
cheek teeth of a great lion.
7) He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree:
he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches
thereof are made white.
8) Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the
husband of her youth.
9) The meat offering and the drink offering is cut off from
the house of the LORD; the priests, the LORD's ministers,
mourn.
10) The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn
is wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth.
11) Be ye ashamed, O ye husbandmen; howl, O ye vinedressers,
for the wheat and for the barley; because the harvest of the
field is perished.
12) The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the
pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree,
even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy
is withered away from the sons of men.
Now if the fig tree is Israel, then can we conclude from
this quote from Joel, that Jesus was dried up (v12), even
though He wasn't born yet? After all, didn't Jesus call
Himself the vine (John 15)?
And can we look at v8 and claim that the virgin is mourning
for the destruction of Jesus, given that the church is the
virgin bride and Jesus is the bridegroom (husband)?
And is Israel represented by the wheat and barley (v11)?
I don't see Jesus talking about wheat and barley in Mat 24.
Or is it possible... just possible... that Jesus was simply
using the fig tree in exactly the way He said He was,
which was to tell them that just like they know that summer
is near, when the fig tree puts forth its leaves, that they
should also know that the end was near, when they saw
the signs that Jesus described? I mean after all, isn't
that what Jesus *ACTUALLY SAID*???
Matthew 24:32-33
32) Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch
is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer
is nigh:
33) So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things,
know that it is near, even at the doors.
And who did He say it to? To some generation, thousands
of years away? Or did He look at them and say, "When
*YOU* see..." ???
And what did He say next?
"Verily I say unto YOU, THIS generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Now that word "verily" doesn't seem to mean much to us,
but in the Greek, it is VERY EMPHATIC! It is as if Jesus
is staking His whole credibility on this one 'time'
statement!
Now you may THINK that what He said before that is all
literal language, but it isn't. Jesus used symbolism. We
can prove this, for example, by looking at a fulfilled
prophecy found in Isaiah 19:1, which tells us about the
time that God used the Assyrians to judge Egypt and it
says that God "rode a swift cloud". Now did anyone see
with their eyes, God riding a cloud? No, they didn't!
But "every eye shall see Him", you say? Quote the rest
of that verse (Rev 1:7) and see that it says, "even they
who pierced Him" and that places it in the first century,
not the twenty first!
Read Mat 13:13 and see that the word "see" can also be used
to mean "understand" and also realize that it can't be first
century people resurrected and then see Him, because the
belief is that He is seen coming and THEN the resurrection
happens, so those who pierced Him must still be alive when
He is "seen" coming!
Revelation 22:12, as everyone knows, speaks of His return
in judgment. I will place that verse in between the
following quoted verses, so that you can compare
the wording...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every
man according to his works.
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me,
to give every man according as his work shall be." - Rev 22:12
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom.
No, it is not about the Transfiguration. That was only days
later and all of them were still alive and there was no
coming with the Father's angels, nor any rewarding of
every man according to his works.
No, it is not about the Pentecost. That was only days later
and all but one of them were still alive and there was no
coming with the Father's angels, nor any rewarding of
every man according to his works.
Jesus said that *some* of them (at least one, but not most)
would be alive when it happened. He said He was coming
"quickly".
And let's not forget that we just compared it with
Rev 22:12, which absolutely is about the Second Coming
and the reading is virtually identical!
Now don't ignore the words. Read them and believe,
whether you can understand how, or not.
Anyway, back to the "national Israel in prophecy" subject...
One of the first things we should note, is that while people
today wait for national Israel to be restored, it wasn't
Israel that was prophesied about anyway. They were cut off
a long time ago! Israel and Judah were divided and it was
out of Judah that the Savior would come.
Genesis 49:8-10
8) Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies;
thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son,
thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as
a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10) The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Note that the scepter would not depart FROM JUDAH.
Also note that this was *UNTIL* Shiloh comes, which
we all know is Christ. Christ would come out of the
tribe of Judah and that is when the scepter would pass
from national, to spiritual.
And let us also note that Genesis 49 is about "the last
days" and that nowhere is mentioned "a revived Roman
Empire", nor a "restored Israel". It was about the 12
tribes!
"And Jacob called unto HIS SONS, and said, Gather
yourselves together, that I may tell *YOU* that which
shall befall *YOU* IN THE LAST DAYS.
It is obvious here, when reading what follows, that Jacob
was telling them what would happen with the 12 tribes,
which is what he goes on to specify in Genesis 49 and
which is what the last days were about (the destruction
of the national and the bringing in of the spiritual).
This idea of national Israel being saved, is based on
the concept that Israel must get all of her land. That
this never happened. Did you know that this belief is
not based on the belief that Israel regains her land,
but that she never received all of it and so, God has yet
to fulfill that promise to Israel? Well, it is, so let us
look at the promise that God made to Israel and see if
it has been fulfilled. Certainly, if the Bible says that it
has been, then we should abandon this belief, right?
"For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed forever." - Genesis 13:15
"In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram,
saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river
of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates"
- Genesis 15:18
Genesis 17:7-8
7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee
and thy seed after thee in their generations for an
everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee.
8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,
the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be
their God.
Now this is an unconditional promise! There is no denying
that! God did not require that Israel fulfill some contract
in order to GET the land. But of course, getting the land
and keeping the land, are two different things. :) God
would give it to them for their possession forever. He also
however, established a covenant with them, that they were
obliged to keep, in order for that gift to be maintained,
which involved His protection and not His punishment.
As we all know, maintaining possession of a gift is quite
different than being given the gift. For example, our
parents can give us a shiny new car and tell us it's ours
forever. But they may also say that if we do not adhere
to the rules, we may lose that car, of our own doing.
Or, we could wrap that car around a telephone pole.
Guess what? No more car. :)
Now what is the sticking word here, for those who await the
national salvation of Israel? Well, that would be the word,
"everlasting", wouldn't it? If God said they would have it
forever, then certainly, they have not had it forever,
right?
But what does that word imply? Can we take it by itself,
out of context and build a doctrine on it? No!
Let us say, for example, that after God said this and after
they came into the land, they said, "No thanks, we don't
want it. See ya later.". What then? Haven't they now
broken the covenant and rejected the gift? Of course
they have!
What is definitely unconditional, is that God would give
them the land. However, He also said that He was entering
into a covenant with them. And a covenant implies a mutual
agreement that both parties must adhere to, or it becomes
void. Thus, God GIVES them the land. However, once they
have the land, they are bound by the covenant. There is no
such thing as a covenant that does not have legal
stipulations!
For example...
"And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations." -
Genesis 17:9
This was about circumcision. Now if man stopped doing this,
does that mean he gets God's CONTINUED blessing in the
matter?
And why don't we seem to get this simple idea of what a
covenant is when discussing God, but we do when discussing
covenants that men make with each other? Doesn't the same
idea hold? Both parties need to uphold their end, or it is
null and void and bad things may follow?
"And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them
unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant."
- Genesis 21:27
Does anyone read this and think, "Abimelech can break it
any time he wants to, but Abraham must uphold his end
anyway, because no matter what Abimelech does, the
covenant is still valid and Abraham should bless him." ???
So here we see that the gift of the land was just that,
a gift. But to maintain that gift, they had to keep the
covenant. This doesn't make God (pardon the phrase)
an Indian giver, not a covenant breaker. Rather, it makes
the Jews the covenant breakers!
So let us now deal with the claim by the modern
Dispensational church, which is that this covenant has still
not been fulfilled and that God has not yet given them all
of their land, because they have not received the land to
"the River of Egypt". This is what this claim that God is
still fulfilling this covenant is based on. But that is
because in their ignorance, the Dispensationalists think
this river is way over in what we now know as Egypt.
But this is not where "the River of Egypt" is. We have
to remember, that Egypt used to control a lot more land
and looking at modern maps and trying to force the Bible
to wrap around them, won't work. (:
According to the ancient maps however, the tale is told
differently.
"The Wadi el-`Arish, known as the 'River of Egypt', formed
the southern boundary of the tribe of Judah, as it did
earlier of the Philistine territory. It drains the seasonal
surplus water from the Wilderness of Paran into the
Mediterranean. South of the Wadi el-`Arish was territory
controlled by Egypt." - Baker's Bible Atlas, p. 31
The River of Egypt is not in what is currently Egypt. It is
in an area of land that Egypt used to control, but no longer
does. Therefore, this claim by the Dispensationalists is
not only irrelevant, but completely and wholly incorrect.
And it flies in the face of what the Bible teaches regarding
this issue also. But since when do the Futurists care what
the Bible says? They are ignorant of God's word and think
the Old Testament should be turned into kindling, except
when they think they have found a passage that supports
their claims (it never does). They never look to what the
whole of Scripture teaches on a given subject. (:
Let us now turn to the Bible and see what it says about
whether or not they had received all of the land that God
had promised them that He would give them.
Joshua 21:43-45
43) And the Lord gave unto Israel *_ALL_* the land which
he swore to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it,
and dwelt therein.
44) And the Lord gave them rest round about, ACCORDING
TO *ALL* THAT HE SWORE UNTO THEIR FATHERS: and
there stood not a man of all their enemies before them;
the Lord delivered *_ALL_* their enemies into their hand.
45) THERE FAILED NOT AUGHT OF ANY GOOD THING
WHICH THE LORD HAD SPOKEN UNTO THE HOUSE OF
ISRAEL; ALL CAME TO PASS.
It is clear here, that God has *ALREADY* fulfilled His
promise! In fact, He did so A LONG TIME AGO, in the days
of Joshua!
But remember that God had said that He would give it to them
forever? Well sure, but let's not forget THE COVENANT.
Let's take a look at what else God said about this subject,
should they transgress the covenant of the Lord.
Joshua 23:14-15
14) And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the
earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls,
that NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED of all the good things
which the Lord your God spoke concerning you; ALL are
come to pass unto you, and NOT ONE THING HATH FAILED
THEREOF.
15) Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things
are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you;
SO SHALL THE LORD BRING UPON YOU ALL EVIL THINGS,
UNTIL HE HAVE *DESTROYED YOU FROM OFF THIS GOOD
LAND* which the Lord your God hath given you.
16) WHEN YE HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE COVENANT of the
Lord your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and
served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; THEN shall
the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, AND YE SHALL
PERISH QUICKLY FROM OFF THE GOOD LAND WHICH HE
HATH GIVEN UNTO YOU.
So here it is clear that when they transgressed the
covenant, that they lost the right to the land. They would
be "destroyed from off this good land". They would,
"perish quickly" from it. So if what the Dispy's believe
is true, then God's a liar!
Now we can surely turn to times in Scripture when God
said that He would return them to the land, if they
repented, but the point I'm making here, is that the concept
of it being "their land forever", was tied to this covenant,
which they did transgress and thereby, lost their "eternal"
"national" right to it.
So when people today are rooting for Israel to blow away
their enemies, they are not acting in a Christian manner,
first of all and secondly, they are thinking, as was shown
earlier, that God's plan is to return to the old system.
They think that Armageddon is the final battle of the whole
world and that Israel wins this war, etc.. But Jesus said
differently, didn't He? Read Luke 21:20-22 and see for
yourselves. And while they claim that Zechariah 14 shows
that Israel will win some future war, the reality is that it
clearly says that Jerusalem would be taken and destroyed.
"But it says that He will turn and fight". Yes, it does.
AFTER JERUSALEM IS DESTROYED! And as every
historian of that era knows, 70 A.D. was the beginning
of the fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, it almost did
fall during the War of the Jews (Rome vs Israel). Now
you know what the fatal wound of the beast was, from
which it recovered. The beast was a man AND an empire.
And the heads were rulers also. Nero died during this
war and Rome almost fell apart, but the beast (Rome)
did live on. It did decline steadily though after this war
and it did eventually crumble into nought.
Read Isaiah 62-64 and Zechariah 12-14 and you will see
that what Jesus said lines up perfectly with this.
Israel is "the Israel of God", not national Israel and their
salvation (national Israel's) was to come at the time of
their destruction, when God took the Mosaic system out
of the way and established His Kingdom, which is spiritual,
not physical (Luke 17:20-21 specifically says this). Thus,
their salvation was to be eschatological, not national.
I.e., they were not to be "nationally saved", but rather,
"eschatologically saved". Isn't this the whole thing of it?
Don't we claim that the Jews failed to recognize that their
Messiah came on a spiritual mission??? So why do you
reject that idea now?! Does that make you a hypocrite,
pitting Scripture against itself?! Think about it, please!
And this did happen, in 70 A.D.. Jerusalem was destroyed
and the Temple was torn down, stone by stone. His
Kingdom was established and it is spiritual, as Jesus said
it would be (Luke 17:20-21)! The old Mosaic system was
removed and as every Rabbi knows, Biblical Judaism ended
in 70 A.D.!
And no, the Wailing Wall does not count! It was part of
the foundation and Jesus specified the Temple buildings!
That would be like telling someone who's house was
destroyed in Hurricane Andrew that it didn't really happen,
because gee, look, the cement foundation survived! (:
A foundation is just that.,.. a foundation. One can build
many things on a foundation! And as I said, Jesus
responded regarding the Temple buildings (Mat 24:1;
Mark 13:1)!
There is no "future restoration of national Israel" and no
"third Temple in which sacrifices will be performed and
in which God will live". It is a farce! And it is based on
the idea that JESUS FAILED to establish His Kingdom
and that God has to keep working around what man does!
The covenant that God had with national Israel is over
and has been for a long time!
In fact, even before 70 A.D., Israel was cut off, remember?
Judah was the one that God helped and it was Judah that
would bring forth the Savior. And that was when the concept
of "national" would end. The Bible says so!
Genesis 49:8-10
8) Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:
thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies;
thy father's children shall bow down before thee.
9) Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son,
thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as
a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
10) The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a
lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come;
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Note that the scepter would not depart FROM JUDAH.
Also note that this was *_UNTIL_* Shiloh comes,
which we all know is Christ. Christ would come out of
the tribe of Judah and that is when the scepter would
pass from national, to spiritual.
Take a lesson here folks! Why are you waiting for something
that is not going to happen and that returns us to the old
covenant, Mosaic system?! As Paul said to the church in
Galatia, that was being mislead by the Judaizers, who were
telling them that they also had to honor the Mosaic
system...
"Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh?" - Galatians 3:3
And so now, I ask you the same question and hope that
you pick the spiritual and not the physical!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near,
a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen. And
the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall
be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and
they shall take away her multitude, and her foundations
shall be broken down." - Ezekiel 30:3-4 (prophecy about
Egypt, fulfilled in 480 B.C.)
Ike E 11/23/9
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mhm0i5d106pjsqqu9...@4ax.com...
>
> Let us first pray and then examine this and see how we must
> abandon the belief of Dispensationalism,
...and Preterism likewise.
[snippeth]
Ike
jos boersema
On 2009-12-10, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> Let us first pray and then examine this and see how we must
> abandon the belief of Dispensationalism, which says that God
> failed to bring His word to pass and teaches that Jesus
> failed in His mission. I'm not saying this because of
> my own beliefs. That is what Dispensationalism teaches.
> That Jesus came to establish an Earthly kingdom and failed.
Doesn't your NT somewhere say that your Jesus came to create a war of
all against all, to pit the father against his children and so on, to
'bring the sword' ? Doesn't jesus say somewhere that he came to 'fulfill
the law' ? Didn't jesus spout a bunch of cheap populist blablah at the
'sermon of the mount' ?
For what I know: Jesus attempted to fake the signs of moshiach, was
believed by some, and created a cult that replaced Roman ancient Greek
mythology with a new kind of cult.
Hence it seems doubtful that Jesus even attempted to establish any kind
of good/proper kingdom of any kind, but was more like a regular cult
building person, someone trying to gain a following & have power over
them. Power games.
But in case this jesus figure did attempt to build the Kingdom, he
obviously did indeed fail. Since jesus-followers believe that jesus was
the 'moshiach jesjaja 53, jeremiah 31:31,' you therefore *have* to
believe that
- Jesus did attempt to bring about the redemption,
- That Jesus failed,
- That God himself failed ! (lol)
- That therefore the Tanach is not true (because it has given false
predictions in your belief, if you believe Jesus is the moshiach
jeremiah 31:31, then you have no choice but to believe the Tanach is
nonsense as it simply hasn't happened like it said it would.)
Notice the circle ? Once you make jesus the moshiach, the Tanach itself
fails, and by that token there is no such thing as a moshiach Jeremia
31:31.
This how dumb jesus-followers are, completely hopelessly dumb. Totally
indoctrinated and utterly dogmatic.
For this jesus-followers have killed and tortured countless people.
Some mark of righteousness then, this jesus-religion. That is a
problem in the jesus-theology, because you claim that blind faith in
jesus makes you 'righteous.' History has proven that hasn't happened.
Jesus-followers even have warred against other types of jesus-followers.
You can contrast my website www.socialism.nl for example: I don't claim
that people doing it will *therefore* be good, never commit any crimes.
> Let us first look at some ancient quotes...
[let's not!]
> Please see:
> http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html
> ...for further comments about historic views of the
> 2nd Coming.
2nd coming ... there is no second coming, jesus was not a pre-cursor of
moshiach jeremiah 31:31. Why can't you just admit your major fuckup ?
Why do you say '2nd coming' instead of say '20th moshiach,' or some such ?
Your jesus is already your second coming, the first was Appollo. It all
has nothing to do with the Torah, it's all the usual scams of Roman
imperial cultural warfare. You fight against the Torah and the Tanach
even up to this day. You attempt to take over the Tanach with your
bullshit, in an effort to curb it into your Imperial power games.
Just admit your monumental 2000 year fuckup ! Then start to comply with
the Torah law, especially on economics: distribute the land, quit all
interest bearing loans and all the tricks that cause in the end the
lender to have a chance to end with more money then he had before.
> Now on to the subject at hand...
>
> Did you know that what is now taught by the church...
> Dispensationalism and "the Rapture", are taught because
> of one belief? And do you know what that belief is?
>
> It is the belief that the Messiah FAILED! That's right!
> The belief that THE MESSIAH FAILED!!!
It doesn't look at all that I'm going to fail, you could say I have
already succeeded before I started. You can kill me now, I'd still win.
Technically I could fail though, that's always a possibility. Your
stupid jesus religion is a contra-indication that I would win, because
idolatry and insanity are not conducive to building a better nation.
Instead of looking at reality noting its problems and solving them, all
you religious MORONS do nothing (which includes the jews).
> Not too many "Dispensationalists" realize that their belief
> is based on the idea that the Messiah came to establish
> His Kingdom and failed to do it, causing the Jews to reject
> Him and so, His Kingdom was postponed.
Indeed, your entire religion is build on a fake messiah that failed,
that didn't do anything of note even, nothing. The word for it: false
messiah, or anti-christ in Greek-English.
You are followers of the anti-christ. I suggest you quit with that
bullshit, and start addresing the issues in the world instead.
> Darby gave us popularized Dispensationalism. And
> no one can deny that it was after Darby, that Christian
> colleges began springing up that taught this idea of
> Dispensationalism. Of course, Scofield, Ryrie, et al,
> helped to popularize this system.
>
> But how can they claim that the Lord failed?!
Because jesus failed, obviously, calling jesus 'lord.'
The false messiah, the anti-christ is your Lord, your Lord failed.
Or did it ? The Roman empire is alive and well, isn't it ? Centered in
Washington right now, with many offshoots all over the world. That's
your kingdom ! It didn't fail to achieve its goal, and the roman empire
is a devious device which can cause animosity in the household and
unbelievable amounts of suffering and war on the Earth ! Your Jesus lord
did achieve what he said he would ! To bring the sword, to cause hatred
between people ! It was not a failure, your evil imperial attempts are
still succesful, and they build themselves up again all the time after a
collapse.
Your currently ruling Emperor is Obama, he promises you a lot with
hollow words & what seems to be lies, just like your jesus. Your Obama
is your Jesus ! That is your second coming of your 'christ' of your
'lord' ! You just chose the wrong 'lord,' I guess. Not a 'lord' of peace
and justice, but one of war and lies, of empty rethoric and then real
war for conquest and domination.
Can't reconsile yourselve to your successes in war ? You really do want
peace and justice instead ? Maybe you should start to handle reality
then, solve its problems, pass proper laws, fight corruption, crime,
wealth disparity, abuse of labor.
How: like so for example www.socialism.nl
> "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
> it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish
> that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing
> whereto I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11
Isaiah is encouraging me, thanks Isaiah, we will succeed. Peace will
rule, and it will be good for all people, even the former jesus
idolators.
> That which He pleased. Hmmm...
Don't bother to think about the Tanach, if you can't see jesus was an
anti-christ, it's all hopeless from the outset.
> "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; he hath put Him
> to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin,
> He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the
> pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand."
> - Isaiah 53:10
It happened, the suffering was bad I can tell you, and it still hasn't
completely ended. It's a kind of suffering from stress that gives you
the feeling your bones hurt also, but it was very bad. I still think it
was worse then it was worth, it was too much, but it happened already so
now too far to give up. Why suffer, and then not have anything to show
for it.
> It seems to me that what pleased the Lord, was for His Son
> to be rejected and to make Him an offering for our sin.
Fuck you, asshole. Doesn't it say 'son of man,' like a regular human
being, to contrast with the devious Roman and Egyptian lie religions
that always talk about the 'son of god,' and aren't we all 'sons of that
which has created us' ?
Using me as your idol, it pisses me off. What am I, only doing what any
sane person should: focus on reality, try to solve its myriad of
problems. Problems that can only be properly adressed through initiating
sensible laws.
> Dispensationalism is built on the idea that God was wrong
> and that these two passages are lies.
Indeed, you seem to be a particularly bright jesus-follower.
> And yet, those who
> buy into this false theology, which is what all doctrines
> that put off the Lord's Kingdom are based on, claim to
> be serving God. How can that be?!
Quite simple: look deeper into what the Tanach says about moshiach
jeremiah 31:31, you will see it does not line up with Jesus fwik.
Did jesus suffer ? Nothing more then countless others put on crosses for
fighting Rome. Even then the suffering was apparently a lot less then
that of other victims. During life he was surrounded by his cult
followers, with friends and stuff, no problems then. His father and
mother didn't abuse him either. Did jesus came from Edom, no. Was he
an arguing person (I once translated Jeremia 31:31 from hebrew and
noticed it said things very different from the translation, notably that
it was an arguing person ?!), no. I think it says somewhere moshiach
doesn't know HaShem, which means isn't born into a jewish home and
raised with the (now broken by the Shulchan Aruch) Torah ? All the
initial signs: wrong. Accomplishments of jesus for total world peace:
worse, achieved little to nothing. Rome still rules, jews still break
the Torah, Romans still follow their idolatry cults, war all around,
crime very extreme these days and violent. Nothing matches up, nothing.
It's all make-believe, only idolators can be dumb enough to fall for it.
> Darby believed that previous dispensations had failed and
> that the church also had failed and that only a remnant of
> it would be saved and of course, this "remnant" consisted
> of his own followers, known as, "the Assembly" and he also
> speculated that the church would be replaced with a revived
> national Israel. Hmmm... Sound familiar to what you are
> now waiting for??? National Israel to be saved? Hmmm?
That doesn't sound too bad: Israel once it does the Torah, and/or my
proposed laws, can and probably will become a light unto the nations
much stronger then it ever was. It will shine with all honorable native
tribal nations, who shine their own light.
About this 'saved' stuff: I really don't know what you are on about with
that all the time. For all I care every single jesus-follower comes back
on Earth and lives a happy life here, that would be the ultimate
success. But I guess you have to want to live in peace & justice, which
may be a difficult step, but all that is not my business is it. You made
it the business of your jesus, but it is not my business. People will
have to decide these things for themselves.
> Dispensationalism believes that the purpose of the first
> advent of Jesus Christ was to offer an earthly Kingdom
> to the Jews.
Any nation, can be the jews, can be the Egyptians, all fine with me.
The more the better.
> This Kingdom would reinstate the Old Testament
> legal system and it's expansion to the entire world under
> the Messiah.
haha, there your Imperial way of thinking peeps through ? One world
empire with an anti-christ as its ruling emperor ? Why not go all the
way back into the trees and be monkeys again, at least we could have a
laugh there.
> Does this sound familiar to you? It should. What you
> believe is a reworking of this. (:
>
> When the Jews rejected Jesus Christ and His Kingdom offer,
Kingdom offer ? What kingdom offer ?!
There was a kingdom offer to the jews though, but not 2000 years ago,
more like right now. They did in fact reject it until now, but that says
nothing yet. The game isn't over, it has barely started.
My guess is that the zionist nation will implode and/or suffer a
military defeat or some kind of tremendous catastrophe that basically
ends it. But the jews or at least quite a few would still be alive
there, but they'd have no state. That would be a nice opportunity
for them to change into the law-model as I worked out. They may finally
decide to read my state/economic law proposal, notice that it is good,
think about it and find no real problems, and then do it.
Since the jews seem still to be a lot smarter then the jesus-idolators,
chances are better that Israel will be the first nation to do my
proposed law system; which is also what the Tanach says will happen.
There are nations that appear vastly ahead of Israel, but they are so
much ahead that they don't even need my laws at all. In that sense
Israel is not the first to do this kind of a system, but it would be the
first to do that exact proposal - a proposal optimized against
corruption for the Roman people and the like (including jews.)
> Plan B went into effect and Christ went to the cross to
> initiate the dispensation of Grace and the "mystery church".
> Had Israel received her King there would have been no cross
> and no Gospel!
Do you even hear yourselve ? 'received her King' ?!
There is to be no ruling king, no dictatorship of Monarchy. The jews
have been in rebellion against the truth and the law ever since King
Sjaul, and they've never led up. When they ask for 'moshiach,' pay
close attention to what they are saying. Are they saying ''give us
moshiach to guide us back to the Torah,'' or are they saying ''give us
King moshiach'' ? Are they saying ''give us law,'' or are they
saying ''give us an absolute Monarch for whom we will bowe.''
The first would be 'moshiach jeremiah 31:31,' the latter would be
ongoing rebellion by Israel. What in fact they are always asking for is
a King, this may have put you on the wrong track and believing that the
jews are to get a King. They are not to get a King at all, they are to
reject the concept of human Kingship; HaShem is their King, the Law is
their King. They are to be better then monkeys, be humans. That's the
idea.
> That is what your belief is based on. (:
>
> So what if Jews had accepted the offer?
Jesus' offer ? Maybe Jesus would have featured as another King of Israel ?
Maybe, who knows.
My law offer ? If they had accepted it, the whole world would be on its
hind legs by now, everyone talking day in day out that the jews seemed
to have gone through their Redemption at long last; 'christians' around
the world wouldn't sleep with excitement, you would be studying my laws
and looking/debating whether you would persue my program right away.
Excitement could be very high, success assured around the world.
Many soldiers may choose not to fight for the evil masters of money
anymore, they would return to their homes and join in the cultural
flurry. After some time there would probably emerge political parties as
I've outlined in other nations, then the whole world may slowly change
for the better -- though it won't be that easy, it is a big program and
lot's of things to do which isn't always easy. I'm talking about new
currencies, initial redistribution of soil, wealth, company ownership
has to be re-assessed for many corporations in courts set up for that,
etc etc. It's all outlined already, killing me won't stop it anymore.
But, they decided only to ridicule me, not even my proposals but they
waste their time on my person. If they just dared to ridicule my
proposal, then we'd have something to debate, and I'd win that probably
(for those with brains to see that is).
But like I said: this game hasn't played itself out yet.
> Then what of the
> prophecies pointing to Christ's atoning death? Once again,
> we have a belief that God's word could come back void
> and one which seeks to make the cross a consolation prize!
>
> Darby believed that the church is just a "parenthesis" in
> God's divine plan, which is for national Israel (words in
> brackets and parenthesis added for clarification only).
It's not just for Israel, the redemption is for all nations, not
especially for Israel. It is even for the animals, so that they will be
abused less by the humans.
> "The Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no
> place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive
> parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's
> earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give
> a fuller character and meaning to them (the Jews)." - Darby
>
> So according to Darby, man "interrupted" God's plan to
> establish a physical kingdom for the Jews. Interesting,
> huh?
haha. lol
Man interrupted God's plan ?
Man interrups its own happyness I'd say, but about God's plans: what do
we know ? Who are we to say ? As far as I can tell the destruction of
evil species seems programmed into the Universe, thus even if all goes
horribly wrong and we create a true hell here, that too may all still be
part of the big plan of possibilities. It's then up for destruction
though as far as I can tell, either from its own internal violence or
from a war between planets, that will be won by the good-planets in the
majority of cases, because those are more efficient and develop faster.
All that happens here then, it's all kind of running around on the palm
of the Creator, we do what we want but we get the concequences that
belong to the choices. Then again, there could be smaller plans with in
that big plan, and there would be more and less ideal choices made by
us. Basically: we do dumb, we pay the price. Sounds like an interesting
plan, all in all.
> But *you* don't believe this, you say? Then why are you
> waiting for a rebuilt Temple, complete with animal
> sacrifices and a saved national Israel? Have you taken
> the time to realize just how messed up that belief is?
I agree, the jews have a warped understanding. They break the Torah
money law, so I guess they are 'cut off.'
> 1) God sets up the system of animal sacrifices.
In a time where people sacrificed children.
> 2) God sends His Son to die on the cross as a ONE TIME
> sacrifice for our sins.
Make belief. Roman empire kills people on crosses, then that's not an
atonement for the wrongdoings of the Roman empire, but part of its
guilt. It sounds scary to talk about killing as if it is a sacrifice
that makes you better. Like it is human sacrifice. Jesus religion seems
to be close to a human sacrifice religion. You sacrificed a human, that
suposedly was going to save you from your evil deeds. I doubt that
seriously !
> 3) God decides that what is necessary, is to ordain a
> rebuilt Temple in which animal sacrifices are performed
> and then later, Jesus moves in there and rules from
> there.
Sounds like a Roman Imperial plan.
> Say what?!? God sends His Son to die on the cross as
> a one time sacrifice, so that He can go back to animal
> sacrifices?!?
Yeah, sounds kind of stupid doesn't it.
> And this all means that somehow God maintains dual
> covenants. One with national Israel and one with the
> church.
Why not ?
> How else can the church be the saved and
> national Israel be saved?
>
> Yet the Bible says...
>
[snip unknown books]
>
> You probably read it as follows...
>
> 1) It says "in part" and so, some Jews are saved.
>
> 2) Then the Gentiles are brought in.
>
> 3) Then God goes back and saves all of national Israel.
Why not, the more people saved the better.
[too long]
--
http://www.socialism.nl