National Israel

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Let's agree that we can disagree :-)

Before we continue our discussion.... here is a deep and mysterious question
for you....

How do you turn a fox into a tazmanian devil??????????   

Marry her!  :-)  and so not to offend the ladies......Marry him.

Now back to the discussion.  You write...

>     I agree that the temple along with the city of Jerusalem was
>destroyed in 70 AD. However, not all things spoken of in the previous
>verses had occurred when the events of 70 AD ended. Verse 21 was not
>fulfilled. Certainly there was great suffering. However, the suffering
>at that point in time pales in comparison to what happened to the Jews
>in Europe in World War II. Had the number of Jews killed in then
>occurred in 70 AD it would have almost depopulated the world of the
>Jewish race. The suffering (not just the ovens) of this century far
>exceeds that of the 1st Century in scope.

I think that the historic record of the suffering of the Jews is the result
of them rejecting the Saviour.  What do you think of the scripture that says
'Let his blood be upon us and our children'?

You will have to argue your post-70 AD point with Jesus, for He said to
those disciples standing there hearing his answer to thier question...This
generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.

IMHO this is why they preached the imminent coming.  It makes sense to me.
I do not see any sense in the idea that this passage, or the entire New
Testament for that matter, was written with an audience spanning two
thousand plus years in the minds of the writers.  Each gospel and letter had
an address and a people in mind.  Romans to Rome, Luke and Acts to
Theophilus, etc.  We are reading someone elses mail!  

I am not saying the word of God is irrevelant, but that it is not written
addressed to the United States of America 1996 but it was written to those
in the first century.  The historic situation being that of the first
century, and the people in whom it was written were contemporary.  Just as
there are eternal truths found in the OT that we can apply to our lives, yet
they are written to historic national Israel.
>
                                                 Nor is there a record
>of astronomical events which would fulfill the sun being darkened and
>the moon not shinning.

When Peter used the words of verse 29 in Acts 2 while preaching salvation to
'ye men of Israel', and after they responded in verse 41, they began to sell
all of their things, Lands, houses, etc. Why? Because they were expecting
something.... something imminent......What was it?......The prophecy of
Jesus Christ recorded in Matt 24, Luke 21, Mark 13.  Each record of Jesus'
prophecy in the gospels ends with, 'This generation shall not pass until all
these things be fulfilled'. 

We do not live communally.  Why, because we are not looking for destruction.
Be careful that you do not misconstrue the words spoken to the disciples
pertaining to thier *historic* situation as being words spoken to you in
your historical situation.  There are already too many kooks that are
preaching the end is near sell all you have.  We both agree that is
stupidity at it's highest! But I believe that for those in first century
Jerusalem hearing Peters prophetic words, 'the sun shall be turned into
darkness and the moon into blood' it was not so stupid!

I believe that Matthew 24 is yet another instance where the Bible is precise
about time and the events that were to transpire.  It seems to me a puzzle
of arbitrary words and times and gaps when not taken in the plain sense.  I
guess it's ok for some folks but I have difficulty with it.

                                                  Nor the stars (meteors?,
asteroids?) falling to
>the earth. This becomes especially telling when all three events were
>to occur as a sign.
>
I think we should let the Bible interpret the Bible here.  Does Jesus mean
*star* as in meteor?  Strongs tells me the word star means a star, not comet
nor meteor.  You believe it means meteor, but you have no Biblical text, nor
word study that will support you.  This is a conjecture pure and simple.
Can you give us a scripture or a word study that will authorize your
conclusion?  I don't think so.

I am not against your looking for the right Biblical answer, my point is
simply that there is no *Bible* for your conclusion.  You are outside of the
scriptures in your assessment of the word star.  Let the Bible interpret itself.

I think the scriptures will give us enough examples to understand the use of
star in this verse.

Numbers 24:17, Genesis 37:9, Amos 5:8 Eze. 32:7 Literal stars?   I believe
the people Jesus spoke with were at least familiar with the idioms and the
language he used.
 
>     The event of verse 30 has yet to occur. Nor were the elect gath-
>ered from the four winds.
>
(Matthew 24:22) Don't you believe the *elect* are Christains?  

Again the scriptures proclaim that the generation in which Jesus is speaking
to would not pass away before;

a.  the temple would be destroyed.  Fact 70 AD. What more do you need?

b.  The gospel would be preached in all the world (oikoumene - Roman empire)
look it up, it is the same word used in Luke 2:1, Acts 11:28, but most
importantly in Romans 10:18.  Do you think that Paul was saying that the
gospel was heard at the ends of the oikoumene or the global earth?

c. Whatever Daniels prophecy is that must take place, it must be in tune
with the words of Jesus when he said *this generation shall not pass until
all these things be fulfilled.*

What does Jesus mean this generation shall not pass until?  Does he mean the
generation that sees the destruction of Jerusalem?  The generation that sees
the gospel preached in all the Roman Empire?  The generation that is within
the time frame that Daniels prophecy speaks of from the time of the going
forth of the command to rebuild? 

I hold that 70 weeks equal 490 years no more no less.  It is *only* when you
force 70 weeks to stop and start instead of allowing time to continue in any
*normal* sense that you can project Jesus words into a future beyond 70 AD.
If Daniels prophecy goes beyond 490 years from the going forth to rebuild
until... then 490 years of time cannot take place without interruption.  I
am happy to allow time to pass day by day week by week year by year without
making it into a puzzle. 

>     We are left with a dilemma. Either verse 34 was a lie because all
>the events spoken of did not come to pass before the generation passed
>away; verse 34 does apply but only to the destruction of the Jerusalem
>and the temple; we have missed it and misapplied the passage in a way
>we do to understand at this time.
>
I do not believe there is a dilemma if you take the word for what it says.
Here is the sister scripture to verses 30-31

Matthew 16:27-28  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.
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.

Your argument is not with me.  You hold that the Son of man has not come in
the glory of his Father with the angels.  Do you also hold they did not
*see* the Son of man coming in his kingdom?  Are you want of a gap here also?


> CF> If I understand your theory correctly, you will answer the above
> CF> by having the scriptures predict a double fulfillment.
>
>     Rather I would expect a complete fulfillment rather than a par-
>tial fulfillment.

The destruction of Jerusalem was not complete?  How so?  If not one stone
left upon another is not complete then what is?  Are you promoting another
gap?  Where in the answer that Jesus gave is the gap suppose to be placed?
And by what authority do you place this gap?  

>     At this time there is no way I will believe that Jesus came back
>as promised as stated in Zechariah 14:3-10. Nor did the events stated
>in 14:11-20 occur at any time during the 1st Century either to the
>Jewish nation nor to the Church.

That OK by me. I believe that Jesus came not to do away with the scripture
but to fulfill.  I think He did exactly that.  Jesus *is* that one Lord and
his name *is* that one name.  The song goes 'Jesus, Lord at thy birth'.
>
> > The multitude of signs given to Israel to stir them to expectancy
> > present a problem for the church which should be looking for Christ
> > and not at the signs to be fulfilled. The fact that no signs are
> > given to the church, but she, rather, is commanded to watch for
> > Christ, precludes her participation in the seventieth week.
>
> CF> In Matthew, the signs are given to the disciples and they in turn
> CF> address the churches.
>
>     In Matthew 24 the event occurred before the crucifixion and
>certainly BEFORE the establishment of the church.
>
I think you may have misunderstood my point.  Jesus is answering the
disciples questions concerning the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.
What more can I say.  He is not addressing any other issue.  He is giving
the answer to when will it take place, what signs do the people he is
addressing look for and what of the end of the Old Testament age.  I have
taken the plain sense of the words and found an answer.  The disciples then
passed this information on to the Churches that were established on the day
of Pentecost and beyond.

> CF> Where, pray tell, are the predictions written to racial Israel?
>
>     The destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, the
>abomination of desolation. 24:20 certainly would not apply to the
>church.
>
I am totally confused here.  Isn't Jesus telling the *disciples* that
Jerusalem would fall?  He is *NOT* addressing the unbelieving Jews is he?
Doesn't logic dictate that if Jerusalem is going to be destroyed then they
(the disciples and thier converts) need to be gone when it happens? 
>
> CF> You do not believe that Jesus *is* (at this moment) the chief
> CF> cornerstone and that in the plan of God it was always thus?
>
>     He is now but He was not recognized as such until after the
>resurrection. He was simply the carpenter's son.There is no scriptur-
>al evidence that the people knew Him to be Messiah during His child-
>hood. Nor did they even recognized (except for a handful) Him as
>Messiah during His ministry. Hindsight is very good. We have the
>advantage of history. Those living when Jesus walked the earth did not
>have that advantage. They did not believe Him to be a person of great
>importance.
>
> CF> Ephesians 2:20  And *are* (present tense) built upon the
> CF> foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
> CF> being the chief corner stone;
>
>     Absolutely!! However, during His ministry on this was not the
>case. 

Are you promoting Sabelianism who said Jesus was not Messaih until his
baptism and that he knew not who he was before the dove set upon him?  OR
are you promoting Platonism who believed that if a tree fell in the forest
and no one was there to hear it then it is irrevelent?

Here is my redition of placing gaps whenever you so choose......

Acts 2:38 would read like this

Repent (gap) history show us that baptism was not yet a common practice with
the Jews.  It was not until the late 1470's at which time men began to
understand the scriptures better due to the invention of the printing
press......and be Baptized (gap) The Holy Ghost was dormant in many of the
denominational churches until 1900 when in a Bible college a woman recieved
the spirit and spoke in tongues...for the promise is unto you (gap)  Israel
is being restored and the promise of the spirit is now for them for in 1948
they became recognized in history as a nation and there was time inbetween
these facts....and your children (gap) because Israel has not yet inherited
the land, having the right lineage, they are entitled to restoration... and
to all that are afar off (gap) because Israel as a nation has not accepted
the Lord Jesus Christ and the United States of America is blessed with the
Pentecostal experience this is now a promise to Russia for they are a far
off our coasts.  

Do I misrepresent the scriptures with gaps?  Yes!  How did I arrive at such
gaps.  By forcing them upon the text.  

        The New Testament church was not yet in existence. It did not
>have its existence until after the death of Christ (Eph. 5:25-26),
>until after the resurrection of Christ (Rom. 4:25; Col, 3:1-3), until
>after the ascension (Eph. 1:19-20), and until after the pouring out of
>the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2.)
>
We agree that the birthday of the church was on the day of Pentecost.  What
does this fact have to do with Jesus' explanation to the disciples
concerning thier question?  

> > Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:(--)
> > and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall
> > be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting
> > Father, The Prince of Peace. (Compare Luke 1, 31, 32.)
>
> CF> I am beginning to see that you are so set on making a difference
> CF> between the Jew and the Gentile that you add gaps at random.
>
>     There was a gap between the time of His birth and His life as a
>child and when He became of age and His resurrection and ascension.
>Nor was He known as the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the
>might God, during His Ministry.
>
Jesus was Lord at his birth.  He was the resurrection before he rose.  He
was the Father before Isaiah wrote these words.  Isn't you usage of gaps
like a stop watch that stops time allowing for circumstances to come about
before starting the time watch again?  When is it that Jesus was not the Father?
 
> CF> IMHO racial Israel's acceptance or rejection does not make one
> CF> bit of difference to the rightful position of the son.
>
>     I certainly agree with this statement. Nor does the disobedience
>of the nation of Israel make one bit of difference in the fact that
>God promised the physical descendants the land from the river of Egypt
>to the River Euphrates as an everlasting possession. That promise has
>yet to be fulfilled. God WILL keep that promise because there was NO
>if clause attached to it. God said and therefore it will happen. Nor
>will the church fulfill this promise. The promise to the church was
>NOT the land between the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates. The
>church was given a totally different promise (John 14:1-3).
>
You and I agree on the issue of Eternal Security.  Why?  Because we both
believe there are conditional clauses that qualify the promises of God.  Do
you want to say that God did not give the land to Abraham?  Didn't they
inhabit it?  YES.
But they lost out with God because of the conditional clauses.

>     Unless God fulfills the promises made literally as promised He
>deliberately deceived those to whom the promise was originally made.
>God does not deceive. Nor is there any reason for Him to do so. Paul
>only cited verse 26 from Ezekiel 37 (in 2 Cor 6:16) and from Isaiah
>52:11 (in 2 Cor 6:17). Paul did not mention the land.
>
>     Romans 11:11 lets us know that God's rejection of the nation of
>Israel is not final. Their fallen state is only temporary, not perma-
>nent. In fact, the stumbling of Israel has set in motion a series of
>events that will lead to Israel's ultimate restoration. Through
>Israel's fall salvation came to the Gentiles. Gentile salvation will
>provoke the Jews to jealousy so that they will again desire God's
>blessings. (This will fulfill Deuteronomy 32:21, quoted in Romans
>10:19. Israel's "fullness" is the conversion of a large number of
>Jews. It parallels the "fullness of the Gentiles" (11:25). Although
>the Jewish fall has brought great blessings to them, they have even
>more to gain from a Jewish restoration.
>
This is the very centerpeice of our discussion!  Restoration to what?
Salvation or the promise of the physical land?  Restored to the position of
the people of God or a restored land mass.  I get a head ache trying to
follow you.

We might disagree on every issue at hand concerning this topic, and please
understand I am as sold on my paradigm and you are on yours.  I remind
myself I am not here to argue but discuss.  I am really trying to understand
your position.  I cannot follow as you jump back and forth claiming Gods
promise is the *LAND* only, not special priviledge.  Then you say God is
going to grant special priviledge concerning *SALVATION* and that the
promise of God in Romans is not the land only.  

God is granting special favor to the Jews concerning salvation.  God is not
granting special favor with the Jews concerning salvation but only the
promise of the Land.  Is it both?  Following this is very dificult.



He who sows is nothing but a sowing sower.