Is everything between 70-2006 A.D. irrelevant?

[David_A_Reed]

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David
Historicism blames Rome way too much for my tastes. Otherwise it is intriguing

[Xavier]

Because premillennialism is wrong. Jesus is reigning now.

Any other view is defeatist and a tragic view of the ministry of Christ.

[David_A_Reed]

Historicism blames Rome way too much for my tastes. Otherwise it is intriguing
Bill,

Then, why not develop an historicist approach that you feel takes a proper view of Rome, according to your understanding of Scripture? I'm sure folks here would find it interesting and challenging.

There are more flavors of historicism than there are of dispensationalism or preterism, simply because there is more room for different understandings. After all, how much room for variation can there be when one thinks everything happens during 7 years, or everything happened in 70 A.D. But historicists have the whole breadth and depth of history to look at.

There is only one true eschatology, of course, and the Lord knows what it is, and those to whom He reveals it. But He often reveals the understanding of prophecy on a 'need to know' basis.

Since dispensational futurism swept over the church 150 years ago, not much has been written from a historicist viewpoint -- so recent historical developments have been neglected. There are some web sites that now try to fill that gap, but just think of what could be uncovered with more faithful souls prayerfully looking at Scripture from the historicist approach.

David

[bar Jonah]

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David
What a ridiculously arbitrary hermeneutic. :rilol:

Let's not look at what God's word says; no no... let's try to give as much subjective "meaning" to an arbitrary time period as we can, because surely relegating such things to short periods of time can't be right, can it?

There is a way which seems wise to man....

:doh:

[David_A_Reed]

Because premillennialism is wrong. Jesus is reigning now.

Any other view is defeatist and a tragic view of the ministry of Christ.
How about the view that Jesus is indeed reigning now -- over the millions who look to Him as Lord. We who love Him have already transferred our citizenship from the nations to the Kingdom of God. And soon that Kingdom will war victoriously against the enemies of God.

Even now, we achieve miraculous personal victories in our lives and in the lives of those we touch with the power of the Holy Spirit. And soon the victory will be complete when the Lord returns in power.

David

[Hitch]

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

Dispensational futurists box themselves into a tiny 7-year space: everything has to happen during a coming tribulation.

Both end up declaring irrelevant everything that has happened between 70 A.D. and 2006 A.D. (That's a lot of stuff to miss out on!)

Can you think of anything between 70 and 2006 that might be significant? Quick, dismiss that evil thought! (if you're a preterist or a dispensational futurist)

David LOL Sounds likes some of E's nonsense.

[bar Jonah]

LOL Sounds likes some of E's nonsense.
Indeed. Ain't it goofy?

Btw, great siggy, Hitch!

[dizzle]

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?

For the same reason I don't reconsider wearing white after Labour Day. It's wrong


Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.


Oopsie my friend. Let's have a little corrective.

Heretics say everything had to happen by AD70 - this is not the unorthodox theology area of the forum, so don't expect such to answer.

Preterists believe many things happened in the first century (you are just as radical to a Jew BTW)

Clear now? Or do I need to rap your knuckles again?

[Straylight]

This thread starts off with an assumption that needs to be corrected:

Not all preterists hold that all prophecy has been fulfilled by 70 AD. And they (even hyper-preterists) most certainly don't believe 70-2006 is "irrelevant". If anything, they think the opposite.

[edit] Looks like DeeDee beat me to the punch.


[edit]

I suspect that the main reason some reject preterism so quickly is because their first exposure to it is from some hyper-preterist perspective.....A perspective that partial preterists would consider heretical as well.

[technomage]

No, the only year in that time period that is truly irrelevant was 1892. Absolutely nothing significant happened that year. :wink:

[Spinyn00bman]

No, the only year in that time period that is truly irrelevant was 1892. Absolutely nothing significant happened that year. :wink:

I thought it was 1897!

[technomage]

I thought it was 1897!

Nope, it was 1892. Trust me on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_W._Armstrong). :hehe:

[Amazing Rando]

How about the view that Jesus is indeed reigning now -- over the millions who look to Him as Lord. We who love Him have already transferred our citizenship from the nations to the Kingdom of God. And soon that Kingdom will war victoriously against the enemies of God.

Even now, we achieve miraculous personal victories in our lives and in the lives of those we touch with the power of the Holy Spirit. And soon the victory will be complete when the Lord returns in power.

David

I would concur with the above- like nearly everything else eschatological in the Bible, Jesus' reign has both a "here already" dimension and a "not yet" dimension. I think Xavier knows this but he just forgot to formulate his statement that way. :wink:

[Xavier]

[...] I think Xavier knows this but he just forgot to formulate his statement that way. :wink:

:tongue:

[kaine diatheke]

David,

I would fall under the umbrella of premillenial historicism; albeit a generic form of historicism that isn't as fine tuned on some of the details. So don't despair. Dee Dee and Straylight are correct though. "Partial" Preterists don't hold to the insignificance of everything that's happened since 70 A.D.

Here's a question though for dispensational futurists. If the church age is a "parenthesis" or an "intercalation" as Chafer called it, and this whole age is a mystery, then how can the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 be the fulfillment of bible prophecy? Did I misunderstand anything?

Kaine Diatheke

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

David,

I would fall under the umbrella of premillenial historicism; albeit a generic form of historicism that isn't as fine tuned on some of the details. So don't despair. Dee Dee and Straylight are correct though. "Partial" Preterists don't hold to the insignificance of everything that's happened since 70 A.D.

Here's a question though for dispensational futurists. If the church age is a "parenthesis" or an "intercalation" as Chafer called it, and this whole age is a mystery, then how can the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 be the fulfillment of bible prophecy? Did I misunderstand anything?

Kaine Diatheke
Hi Kaine.

I'm a DF and I am not sure that Israel's reestablishment in '48 was THE fulfillment of prophecy. There seem to be some items missing, like the control of Jerusalem and the temple mount specifically. However, It may be the beginning of the prophecy... I'll let you know on the way up...

[Hitch]

David,

I would fall under the umbrella of premillenial historicism; albeit a generic form of historicism that isn't as fine tuned on some of the details. So don't despair. Dee Dee and Straylight are correct though. "Partial" Preterists don't hold to the insignificance of everything that's happened since 70 A.D.

Here's a question though for dispensational futurists. If the church age is a "parenthesis" or an "intercalation" as Chafer called it, and this whole age is a mystery, then how can the reestablishment of Israel in 1948 be the fulfillment of bible prophecy? Did I misunderstand anything?

Kaine Diatheke Thats a big problem for DF's. Its unlikely the current generation is even aware that prior to WWII the rapture had to happen before Israel could be returned to the Land .heh heh

This is why I reckon the greatest 'sure sign' of recent DF teaching, the establishment of Israel, will prove to be the undoing of the entire system.


Cat's answer is typical. What had been the 'beginings of fulfillment' , undoubted 'sure signs' for DFs go back to at least the 1850s. Early 20th century articles and books cite proof after proof the the 'fig tree is budding'. The emphasis was always on why this or that was certain proof of the WORD OF GOD's truth, as dispensationally divided. Obviously since 1948 and especially the failure of the twenty and forty year long 'generations' to bring in the rapture the excuses and corrections have become more and more fanciful, as the leadership in DF becomes more and more pop theology oriented.

The 'Great Paenthesis' doctrine died in 1948 and was burried when DTS through Walvoord changed the standard of official obeyance WRT prophecy and adopted a Lindsey-esque current fulfillment version.

Good riddence.


Take care

H

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Thats a big problem for DF's. Its unlikely the current generation is even aware that prior to WWII the rapture had to happen before Israel could be returned to the Land .heh heh

And your point is?

This is why I reckon the greatest 'sure sign' of recent DF teaching, the establishment of Israel, will prove to be the undoing of the entire system.


Just because the popularists keep running their traps, it doesn't make the system any less valid.

Cat's answer is typical.

Yeah, of someone who knows the Dispensational Futurist position and doesn't hang the whole enchalada on what Hal Lindsey says. You would do well not to judge the book by the popularist cover.

What had been the 'beginings of fulfillment' , undoubted 'sure signs' for DFs go back to at least the 1850s. Early 20th century articles and books cite proof after proof the the 'fig tree is budding'. The emphasis was always on why this or that was certain proof of the WORD OF GOD's truth, as dispensationally divided. Obviously since 1948 and especially the failure of the twenty and forty year long 'generations' to bring in the rapture the excuses and corrections have become more and more fanciful, as the leadership in DF becomes more and more pop theology oriented.

Again with the assumption that we all follow Hal Lindsey and John Hagee. All you have said here is that some historical loudmouths have made assumptions that have failed. Big filippin deal...

The 'Great Paenthesis' doctrine died in 1948 and was burried when DTS through Walvoord changed the standard of official obeyance WRT prophecy and adopted a Lindsey-esque current fulfillment version.

The doctrine is still there. The parenthesis will end like a thief in the night, and not until then. No professor can declare it over and no system can declare it complete until we are all on the way up.

Even so, come Lord Jesus...

[kaine diatheke]

Hi Kaine.

I'm a DF and I am not sure that Israel's reestablishment in '48 was THE fulfillment of prophecy. There seem to be some items missing, like the control of Jerusalem and the temple mount specifically. However, It may be the beginning of the prophecy...

Thank you Bill for you very quick response. Don't they control Jersusalem though? I thought they took control of the whole city along with the West Bank and Gaza in the 1967 war.

I'll let you know on the way up...

At the post-tribulational rapture/resurrection, right? LOL.

Kaine Diatheke

[kaine diatheke]

I messed up on the above post. I'm still trying to figure this stuff out. I'm not very computer literate. I meant to ask you Bill about Israel's control of the West Bank including the other half of Jerusalem they occupied in the 1967 war. I then inserted my little post-trib joke. Sorry about that.

Kaine Diatheke

[maudman]

It is not irrelevent!

I don't blame preterist for thinking the way they do. Simply because futurist have failed in as many ways as preterist.

First Christ is exercising authority over that which is his. As he always has done. Christ is the lord or Yehwey that ruled over that which was his prior to the sacrifice. As he does after the sacrifice. And he is the head of the church. Not the world!!!!

It is God who rules over the world not Christ. Hence the phrase " sit down at my right while I make thine enemies thine foot stool".
It is God who determines the future. The book of Revelations is a document describing who qualified to have the key's to loosen the understanding of Prophecy to the church. Christ had qualified to be given its meaning.

Christ doesn't determines the events or their outcome. The church therfore because of Christ "would gain insight as to what GOD!!!! is doing". And how God is going to make the earth Christ's footstool.


Christ came and showed us the path to salvation. Which the prime directive is to serve the will of the Father. Which CHrist did, Has done and contunuies to do to this day!! Yes Christ rules but its his church not the world.

Christ said only the father knows the times appointed not even the Christ. CHrist sits at the right hand of authority as does the true church. At some point in time in the future the Father will put all under his(Christ's) Feet. Why? because While Christ was a man he servered the father even unto his death as does the true church.
That's why were told to watch as Christ had instructed. His insight came as a revelation from the Father. The Father was telling him what he was going to do. So he instructed us to watch and be not slack concerning such things.

Preterism isn't watching plain and simple.

Peace to you all.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I messed up on the above post. I'm still trying to figure this stuff out.

No sweat. Just surround the bit of text you are quoting with Text quoting You can do that as many times as you like in the post.


I meant to ask you Bill about Israel's control of the West Bank including the other half of Jerusalem they occupied in the 1967 war. I then inserted my little post-trib joke. Sorry about that.

Kaine Diatheke

No problem. I'm not sure if they do or not, but I can tell you for certain that they do not control the most important piece, the Temple Mount.

[Hitch]

And your point is?

This was not just a doctrinal position but a test of faith and a foundational portion of DF teaching. Its failure is DFs failure.



Just because the popularists keep running their traps, it doesn't make the system any less valid.

Well Cat you might have had some substance there a decade ago. But when DTS abandoned the system it was all over but the last gasps of the pew sitting faithful who are always the last to know.



Yeah, of someone who knows the Dispensational Futurist position and doesn't hang the whole enchalada on what Hal Lindsey says. You would do well not to judge the book by the popularist cover.


LOL It was DTS in the person of her long time President (Walvoord) who defected Cat. Not some TV preacher but the most widely read and most well known DF teacher of the last half century.This is a complete capitulation.


Again with the assumption that we all follow Hal Lindsey and John Hagee. All you have said here is that some historical loudmouths have made assumptions that have failed. Big filippin deal...

LOL Well I can see why its embarrassing but Hal and Joihn are the primary DF spokesmen these days and since the seminaries no longer teach the old faith there are few if any well known spokesmen left. It should be noted that the weaknesses in the Lindsey-Hagee version were in place a century ago, and the internal conflicts have never been corrected. A new 'sign' and new 'proof' will alwys be found ,,and the cash will pour in. This is the Pentecostal DF legacy. And to repeat it was no less than the world's primary classical DF spokesman who eventually denied the old faith, so it doesnt help to intimate this is a minorty/crackpot position. It is the realization of the split along Baptist/Pentecostal lines that began with the birth of the AOG if not before.



The doctrine is still there. The parenthesis will end like a thief in the night, and not until then. No professor can declare it over and no system can declare it complete until we are all on the way up.


Well it always was a hollow log, its just gotten more holow as the years and decades pass. Interesting Cat you dont mind that nothing more than a professor's imagination birthed the GP. You cant have 'God's Clock of Prophecy 'stopped and moving at the same time. Still the faithful know with certainty;

In the plan of God the centre of the world's stage today is the Church ,so all prophecies concerning any indicated Gentile nation, or combination of nations, are held in obeyance untill the Church is taken away'

Sale-Harrison, The Coming Great Northern Confederacy p 101, 1945


Even so, come Lord Jesus... and then came 1948,,,,

Take care

Hitch

[games]

You know, the continent of North America being discovered had to be relatively important, I mean at least maybe. That happened since 70. If not North America, maybe Antartica

[solafide]

How about the view that Jesus is indeed reigning now -- over the millions who look to Him as Lord. We who love Him have already transferred our citizenship from the nations to the Kingdom of God. And soon that Kingdom will war victoriously against the enemies of God.

Even now, we achieve miraculous personal victories in our lives and in the lives of those we touch with the power of the Holy Spirit. And soon the victory will be complete when the Lord returns in power.

David


Hello David:

My name is Bill and I am new to this forum (my first post). Although I'm not big on labels as they mean different things to different people, it is difficult to express what you believe without using them. As a Christian believer in Covenant Theology, I subscribe to a partial preterist interpretation of Old and New Testament prophecy. Although demonic forces are clearly present and active in this world, I believe the "strong man is bound". Complete victory in Christ for all who believe was achieved at the Cross. Although I long for Christ's return, victory in Christ is ours for the here and now.

Best regards,

Bill

[dizzle]

:woohoo: another orthodox preterist

[solafide]

:woohoo: another orthodox preterist

You'll have to help me out here. What means "orthodox preterist"??

[Hitch]

You'll have to help me out here. What means "orthodox preterist"??A short version;

Othodox preterist believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and in a history ending bodilly resurrection of 'all who are in the graves'. The 'Full Preterist' does not allow for such physical resurrections.

We sometimes use 'orthodox preterist' because others especially 'Full Preterist' and DFs have dishonestly blurred the lines of distinction.


Take care

Hitch

[dizzle]

:yeahthat:

And I won't use the term "partial preterist" whenever possible as it sells the semantical farm to the hyperpreterists. Do Calvinists allow themselves to be called "partial Calvinists" by the hypercalvinists? No. Preterism is a historically old term which has never meant the modern heretical distortion that is trying to claim it.

[{Undersecretary of Internal Affairs}]

You'll have to help me out here. What means "orthodox preterist"??
Means you're not one of the heretics who say that "everything" (including the final resurrection etc) happened by 70 AD.

AKA "non-partial" preterism.

[solafide]

A short version;

Othodox preterist believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and in a history ending bodilly resurrection of 'all who are in the graves'.

Hitch

Thanks for the clarification.

[maudman]

Thats a big problem for DF's. Its unlikely the current generation is even aware that prior to WWII the rapture had to happen before Israel could be returned to the Land .heh heh

This is why I reckon the greatest 'sure sign' of recent DF teaching, the establishment of Israel, will prove to be the undoing of the entire system.


Cat's answer is typical. What had been the 'beginings of fulfillment' , undoubted 'sure signs' for DFs go back to at least the 1850s. Early 20th century articles and books cite proof after proof the the 'fig tree is budding'. The emphasis was always on why this or that was certain proof of the WORD OF GOD's truth, as dispensationally divided. Obviously since 1948 and especially the failure of the twenty and forty year long 'generations' to bring in the rapture the excuses and corrections have become more and more fanciful, as the leadership in DF becomes more and more pop theology oriented.

The 'Great Paenthesis' doctrine died in 1948 and was burried when DTS through Walvoord changed the standard of official obeyance WRT prophecy and adopted a Lindsey-esque current fulfillment version.

Good riddence.


Take care

H


Hello Hitch

It's is simply that DF is confused about certain things as are Preterist. In DF attemp to bring Israel into Some kind of Prophetic fulfillment they as preterist have overlooked ONE important thing. Israel Doesn't need any prophetic Fulfillment to inhabit the land of Israel or Jerusalem it is their destiny written in Blood and stone.

Literal Jerusalem is their Mother and they are her Children. Just as heavenly Jerusalem is our Mother. Their Promise was an Earthly one. Ours is a heavenaly one. What Christ said about the fig tree is still true. Israel had been occuping the land of palenstine at his time even before the maccabean revolt. The fig was well rooted its twigs weren't tender. When God chooses that Israel needs to occupy Jerusalem he can do it when he chooses because be its their Inheritance. DF has failed to see this. Israels occupations serve some purpose for YHWY God and he uses them to perform his will. Christ warning carried both a current and yet future message.

Can you see the Issue before God. Christ telling us Ok Guy's look I need you to go out and spread this Gospel and they are going to stone you and beat you and kill you But when I come the second time I will bring my reward with me. Hey! but that's a couple of a thousand years off. His warning was Immediate because the work wasn't Done. But his Promise was immediate. This Day can be our day of salvation for us it's not the future its the now. Because CHrist had set up a heavanly Jerusalem Of which when he was done here he was going to go and prepare and office for us. But Gods plan still rocked on. And Israels has shown to be an Intigeral part of it at Gods will not ours.

LIke Christ said no man Knows only God the Father and from the pages of the bible Israel is in the middle of it even if they don't believe in Jesus Christ. He died for all not because we believed in him but because he believed in us.

peace.

[David_A_Reed]

Hello David:

My name is Bill and I am new to this forum (my first post). Although I'm not big on labels as they mean different things to different people, it is difficult to express what you believe without using them. As a Christian believer in Covenant Theology, I subscribe to a partial preterist interpretation of Old and New Testament prophecy. Although demonic forces are clearly present and active in this world, I believe the "strong man is bound". Complete victory in Christ for all who believe was achieved at the Cross. Although I long for Christ's return, victory in Christ is ours for the here and now.

Best regards,

Bill

Bill,

Welcome to the forum!

Yes, victory is ours in Christ, now and forever!

Still, we long for the time when the Kingdom of God will put an end to the human kingdoms that arrogantly the earth.

David

[Hitch]

Hello Hitch

It's is simply that DF is confused about certain things as are Preterist. In DF attemp to bring Israel into Some kind of Prophetic fulfillment they as preterist have overlooked ONE important thing. Israel Doesn't need any prophetic Fulfillment to inhabit the land of Israel or Jerusalem it is their destiny written in Blood and stone. Well thats about as conflicted as something can get. How anyone could have a 'written destiny' that has nothing to do with prophecy escapes me.

Literal Jerusalem is their Mother and they are her Children. Just as heavenly Jerusalem is our Mother. Their Promise was an Earthly one. Ours is a heavenaly one. What Christ said about the fig tree is still true. Israel had been occuping the land of palenstine at his time even before the maccabean revolt. The fig was well rooted its twigs weren't tender. When God chooses that Israel needs to occupy Jerusalem he can do it when he chooses because be its their Inheritance. DF has failed to see this. Israels occupations serve some purpose for YHWY God and he uses them to perform his will. Christ warning carried both a current and yet future message.

No Maud you cant open with Israel Doesn't need any prophetic Fulfillment to inhabit the land of Israel or Jerusalemand follow with citations of prophecy. /

Can you see the Issue before God. Christ telling us Ok Guy's look I need you to go out and spread this Gospel and they are going to stone you and beat you and kill you But when I come the second time I will bring my reward with me. Hey! but that's a couple of a thousand years off. His warning was Immediate because the work wasn't Done. But his Promise was immediate. This Day can be our day of salvation for us it's not the future its the now. Because CHrist had set up a heavanly Jerusalem Of which when he was done here he was going to go and prepare and office for us. But Gods plan still rocked on. And Israels has shown to be an Intigeral part of it at Gods will not ours.

Again you allude to prophecy, Now is the time today is the day of salvation is Paul's apostolic interpretation of a propehcy to Israel. Irsael's glory and salvation came at the Nativity. And all who were called and taught by the Father recognized His Messiah. Dont forget, Christ's entire ministry was primarily directed toward the 'lost sheep of Israel'. His spiritual blessings bestowed upon the Church were what He brought to Israel and are ours by extension. First the natural then the spiritual.
LIke Christ said no man Knows only God the Father and from the pages of the bible Israel is in the middle of it even if they don't believe in Jesus Christ. He died for all not because we believed in him but because he believed in us.

peace. You cant have both sides of an argument. You have repeatedly claimed Israel needs no prophetic fulfillments to occupy the Land, on one hand, on the other hand you repeatedly cite prophecies .

Take care

Hitch

[maudman]

Well thats about as conflicted as something can get. How anyone could have a 'written destiny' that has nothing to do with prophecy escapes me. No Maud you cant open with Israel Doesn't need any prophetic Fulfillment to inhabit the land of Israel or Jerusalemand follow with citations of prophecy. / Again you allude to prophecy, Now is the time today is the day of salvation is Paul's apostolic interpretation of a propehcy to Israel. Irsael's glory and salvation came at the Nativity. And all who were called and taught by the Father recognized His Messiah. Dont forget, Christ's entire ministry was primarily directed toward the 'lost sheep of Israel'. His spiritual blessings bestowed upon the Church were what He brought to Israel and are ours by extension. First the natural then the spiritual. You cant have both sides of an argument. You have repeatedly claimed Israel needs no prophetic fulfillments to occupy the Land, on one hand, on the other hand you repeatedly cite prophecies .

Take care

Hitch

Hello Hitch thanks for the reply and I understand your frustration.


Hitch your a victim of a Poor theological approach to eschatology that seems to be more prevalent these days as people who neglected certain studies or those” teaching” have failed or lack the insight to make certain distinctions. I don't blame people for their zealousness in trying to understand these things. The world heats up and everybody is looking for answers.

Truth is people don’t like change or to be shown their wrong and when religion is involved it get amplified. I will explain some things that well make you aware of something that seems to be confusing but really isn’t.

Understanding first what is the difference between “prophecies and covenants” in the bible. Israel’s relationship with promise land is one that was based on “covenants” not prophecy. Israel, “believe it or not had prophecy before they had covenants of promise land. YWHY God chose a people through which he would preserve the prophecy. They were the vessel or container of it. The prophecy was prophesied in the Garden of Eden.


Israel never saw there covenant of promise land as a fulfilled prophecy. Covenants are agreements between YWHY and those whom he has chosen/predestine. They are binding agreements that carrying within them other covenants that were conditional. YWHY made a binding agreement unconditional with Israel because of Abraham. But once the covenant was set in place, YWHY relationship would become conditional upon other covenants that were conditional. In other words if Israel of itself work to keep conditions right with YWHY, They would dwell in a favorable light or relationship with YWHY.

The Role of the Prophet in Israel was to preserve the Prophecy but because of the backsliding of Israel he was forced into the role of warning them of the conditional covenants within the primary covenant. He was the spokesman for YWHY and the priesthood. Prophets in Israel served to warn "Israel not the world". His warning carried punishment if not heeded. Prophecy was something that was going too happened and it was the will of GOD not conditional to Israel or Covenants. Regardless of what was going on within the covenants the prophecy was going to happen.

Simply put a prophecy isn’t just something that’s going to happen in the future, it was actually something more. Not as it is seen by most who approach things today.

Take care Hitch.

[Straylight]

Their Promise was an Earthly one. Ours is a heavenaly one.

Paul says that we are grafted into the same olive tree, while some old branches were thrown out. He didn't say that God created a new olive tree, and that this new one will be for these people, and the other for these people. He said that we are grafted in the old one. They are both the same.

The Church is Israel, and Israel is the Church. Consisting of both Jews and Gentiles under the fullness of the covenant of Christ. Everyone else is simply an unbeliever, nothing more, and outside of God's grace.

If the promises to Israel were earthly, as you say, then that would mean the promise of their Messiah (which their prophets prophesied of) would be earthly as well -- But what does their Messiah say?

"My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here." [John 18.36]

Their promises are not earthly. They have always been heavenly and pointed to the perfections of Christ. The gospel we have now is, has been, and always applies in the same way for Jew or Gentile.

Now, that being said, I don't doubt that Israel's current occupation doesn't serve some future purpose for Christ, but I will not subscribe to every Tom, Dick, and Joe's theory that says their occupation is in effect because of earthly promises (i.e. for Israel's sake, as opposed to Christ's sake) or that they are still "the chosen people". The "chosen people" are those who serve Christ. The people of "promise" are the people who have the faith of Abraham (Rom 9.1-8). No one else. The whole point of Israel's land and earthly symbols were to bring up and nurture the idea of the Messiah, and through him, extend the promises to the entire world -- NAY, the entire universe -- But now that he has come, it's anathema to give even a shred of credence to the earthly symbols, and not the heavenly reality.

If anything, he does for current Israel what he does in the same sense that he moves any worldly or cosmic power; he operates with Israel just like he operated with Constantine, Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, or the Colonials to bring about the governments of Byzantium, France and the United States. Not because of some sense of earthly promise, which serves absolutely no point outside the promise of his Son.

[maudman]

Paul says that we are grafted into the same olive tree, while some old branches were thrown out. He didn't say that God created a new olive tree, and that this new one will be for these people, and the other for these people. He said that we are grafted in the old one. They are both the same.

The Church is Israel, and Israel is the Church. Consisting of both Jews and Gentiles under the fullness of the covenant of Christ. Everyone else is simply an unbeliever, nothing more, and outside of God's grace.

If the promises to Israel were earthly, as you say, then that would mean the promise of their Messiah (which their prophets prophesied of) would be earthly as well -- But what does their Messiah say?

"My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here." [John 18.36]

Their promises are not earthly. They have always been heavenly and pointed to the perfections of Christ. The gospel we have now is, has been, and always applies in the same way for Jew or Gentile.

Now, that being said, I don't doubt that Israel's current occupation doesn't serve some future purpose for Christ, but I will not subscribe to every Tom, Dick, and Joe's theory that says their occupation is in effect because of earthly promises (i.e. for Israel's sake, as opposed to Christ's sake) or that they are still "the chosen people". The "chosen people" are those who serve Christ. The people of "promise" are the people who have the faith of Abraham (Rom 9.1-8). No one else. The whole point of Israel's land and earthly symbols were to bring up and nurture the idea of the Messiah, and through him, extend the promises to the entire world -- NAY, the entire universe -- But now that he has come, it's anathema to give even a shred of credence to the earthly symbols, and not the heavenly reality.

If anything, he does for current Israel what he does in the same sense that he moves any worldly or cosmic power; he operates with Israel just like he operated with Constantine, Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, or the Colonials to bring about the governments of Byzantium, France and the United States. Not because of some sense of earthly promise, which serves absolutely no point outside the promise of his Son.


Hello Straylight,

Well I can see this it’s going to take a lot of explaining. You didn’t get your belief overnight so don’t expect it all to make sense on a single page. I get the impression that you may think I’m going to justify DF position, If you think you know what I am getting at with all of this you would be better putting it out of your mind. I said early that both are failures in more ways than one. I ‘m not avoiding a direct response to your post but before I can address it other things have to be hashed. I will address one thing though in your post and it is that thing you mentioned about Chosen people.

Ones inability to explain the truth isn’t help to those whose anti-thesis leads them another way. That door swings both directions, but if one is willing to endure the persecution that comes with ones belief then one is faithful regardless of his religious views. If one sincerely seeks the truth of God he’s not to be blamed for the misinformation that exists unless he ignores it to avoid petty persecution or further growth. Being misinformed may not exempt one from the consequences of a judgment though.

When Christ said take heed that you be not deceived there are reasons.


But those who spread misinformation the judgment is much more severe because eventually you will but heads with God. What drives this situation? Vanity and pride. Many when they didn’t know, ran their mouths anyway and that’s the problem in Christianity today more of a Babylon than a beacon of light. People drink the Cup offered and they become mad.

I can say things that infuriate both Preterism and DF simply because we ignore what we can’t explain. Or because were hell bent on defending interpretations rather than the truth. I will share something with you Straylight to demonstrate something about me.

I was once attending a DF prophecy pow wow in the local protestant church that I sometimes attend because my father in-law was interested and thought I might should be. For three day’s I listen to a man talk about Israel, God’s chosen people and I was perplexed when it was done. Not because I thought I had heard the truth but because I felt I had just herd a bunch of BS.

But I wandered what had driven the speaker to say what he was saying, the speaker being a man respected and a former pastor too many in the church. My father in-law after the last night drove me home and was asking me what I thought about the speaker and he was somewhat in a positive light. I thought for a moment, and then God does what it always does, it gives me the answer when I need it. I turned and looked at him and said, “Why would I become a Christian if I could drive down the road and become a Jew to be Gods chosen people? He just looked and everything was silent until our departure. We said good bye and left things as they were.

The truth is that those who worship God and pray to the Father are Christ’s and when we confront those who appose what God is doing he will speak for us. Now everybody thinks they have the truth and everybody thinks that God is speaking for them. So how do we get around presupposition? We simply post things that are true and ask the question that it begs and compare it to what we thought was true. In the end we put up or shut up.

And by the way everyone that searches for the truth is a Tom, Dick and Harry until everyone but one thinks differently.

Peace straylight

[Straylight]

Peace to you too. I noticed that you weren't defending DF necessarily, so that wasn't the main charge of my post (just so you know). What perked my ears up was your distinction between the fulfillment of earthly and heavenly promises....A very DF idea.

Anyways, I'm calling it quits for the Eschatology section for now. Too many complicated truth bearers around here for my tastes, I think. I'm a simple man, and only care to know Christ crucified and the covenant he wrought in his blood. I'll let that color my interpretations in and out. Other people can have their convoluted mysteries and doubled sided interpretations.

[Hitch]

Hello Hitch thanks for the reply and I understand your frustration.


Hitch your a victim of a Poor theological approach to eschatology that seems to be more prevalent these days as people who neglected certain studies or those” teaching” have failed or lack the insight to make certain distinctions. I don't blame people for their zealousness in trying to understand these things. The world heats up and everybody is looking for answers.

Truth is people don’t like change or to be shown their wrong and when religion is involved it get amplified. I will explain some things that well make you aware of something that seems to be confusing but really isn’t.

Understanding first what is the difference between “prophecies and covenants” in the bible. Israel’s relationship with promise land is one that was based on “covenants” not prophecy. Israel, “believe it or not had prophecy before they had covenants of promise land. YWHY God chose a people through which he would preserve the prophecy. They were the vessel or container of it. The prophecy was prophesied in the Garden of Eden.


Israel never saw there covenant of promise land as a fulfilled prophecy. Covenants are agreements between YWHY and those whom he has chosen/predestine. They are binding agreements that carrying within them other covenants that were conditional. YWHY made a binding agreement unconditional with Israel because of Abraham. But once the covenant was set in place, YWHY relationship would become conditional upon other covenants that were conditional. In other words if Israel of itself work to keep conditions right with YWHY, They would dwell in a favorable light or relationship with YWHY.

The Role of the Prophet in Israel was to preserve the Prophecy but because of the backsliding of Israel he was forced into the role of warning them of the conditional covenants within the primary covenant. He was the spokesman for YWHY and the priesthood. Prophets in Israel served to warn "Israel not the world". His warning carried punishment if not heeded. Prophecy was something that was going too happened and it was the will of GOD not conditional to Israel or Covenants. Regardless of what was going on within the covenants the prophecy was going to happen.

Simply put a prophecy isn’t just something that’s going to happen in the future, it was actually something more. Not as it is seen by most who approach things today.

Take care Hitch. Splitting hairs is another DF trait. As is the notion of having some sort of key to unlock the Scriptures.Tired ones at that.

[spauline]

Hi, I am a Catholic idealistic historicist, so I can accept your question. Of course, I am not an exclusive historicist, as Catholicism accepts the possibilities that Scripture can have more than one layer of meaning. Hence, in our Tradition, the Book of Rev. could apply to all of the following in several ways:


I. The Fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 / Early Church crisis (preterist)
II. The Very End of the World (futurist)
III. Pure allegory describing common ways of fulfillment throughout Church history or in general spiritual situations (idealist)
IV. Multi-dimensional Prophecy of Entire Church Age from spiritual perspective (Historicism)

for me, the last two ways are the most fruitful way to look at the Book, but, again, historicism is useles unless done from a spiritual standpoint, for the spiritual condition of man is really at the root of history.

My blog (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7HJjW9kieKlaV2usQKhFiwefjXc-?l=16&u=19&mx=19&lmt=5&p=2) here (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7HJjW9kieKlaV2usQKhFiwefjXc-?l=16&u=19&mx=19&lmt=5&p=2) expands these ideas from the standpoint a two-apostasy scenario of Church history (as opposed to exclusive, pessimistic amill)

[spauline]

for example, here is at least one way to apply historicism:


See here (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7HJjW9kieKlaV2usQKhFiwefjXc-?p=52) on my blog for the explanation of the Catholic "states or way" that shows the Jews and the Catholic saints in general pass through the "three-stage way", corresponding nicely to Revelation's 3 part structure: the Seven Seals, the Seven Trumpets, and the Seven Bowls.

So, as you can read there, we can connect the illuminative phase with the Seven Trumpets. Therefore, after the dark night of the senses in the purgative stage (in this case, pagan Rome's persecutions), the Church enters the illuminative phase, where those sealed in the forehead by God are the faithful children of the Catholic Church who are not "harmed" by the trumpets, which symbolize the opposition to the RCC's doctrinal development. More or less, I am sure historians can accept the following outline of the primary spiritual attacks on the Church's doctrinal development from Nicae to present as follows:

I. The Trinitarian and Christological Heresies
II. Islam
III. The Great Schism
IV. The Moral Scandal of the Catholic Leadership
V. The Protestant Rebellion
VI. The "Enlightenment"
VII. The Modern Secular Apostasy

From this outline, a very simple pattern arises: the devil is progressively attacking the sources of Divine Truth from top to bottom:

I. God as Trinity and Incarnate Man
II. The Pope
III. The Rest of the Bishops and Oral Tradition
IV. The Written Tradition (Scripture)
V. Reason (Natural Human Intellect)

Hence, in the first stage, the devil attacks the Ultimate Revealer, God Himself as Trinity, and the Son, the Incarnate Redeemer. But in the first stage, whereas some aspect of the Trinity or of Christ is attacked, Christ is still held, more or less, as the final Revelator. But, then, with Islam, the attack is more severe: not only is the Trinity and Incarnation denied, but then a Revelation that surpasses Christ is claimed (i.e. Muhammed)

(... continued)

[spauline]

... continued

In the next step, the devil progresses to the mediated sources of Divine Truth: the Church, whose top is the Pope, then the Bishops and Oral Tradition in general, then the Written Tradition. Hence, the first attack is on the Pope, that is, the Great Schism. Next, the devil makes the Church look bad by moral iniquity in the Bishops, causing the rejection not only of the Pope, but also the rest of the Bishops and the Oral Tradition, leaving only [most of] the Scriptures, which was Protestantism. Next, after the Protestants (perhaps mostly not of their own fault but just trying to follow their conscience) confound the hell out of doctrine, and with all the division and bloodshed (in which many of all Christian persuasions are to blame, Protestant and Catholic), man grows tired of the search for supernatural truth and relegates religion purely to natural intellect, which is the "Enlightenment." Finally, through man's scientific pride and other reasons, even reason is tossed, leaving either atheism or relativism, which is our modern apostasy age.

but the RCC mystics' scenario strongly suggests a chastisement that exposes all the various errors of the above, and the RCC's Revelation is vindicated, leading to a near total restoration Catholic Christendom and an Age of Peace, perhaps symbolized in the assumption of the Two Witnesses.

Anyway, that's just one way to look at it from a Catholic view.

GB,
scott

[John Reece]

Preterists box themselves into the first century: everything had to happen by 70 A.D.

:smile:

Regarding the thread title, “Is everything between 70-2006 A.D. irrelevant?”:

Do you think nothing in history — and God’s purpose for the Church in this world — is relevant other than imaginary futuristic end-time scenarios?

Have all nations been discipled? The Greek text of Matthew 28:16-20 does not mean merely make disciples in all nation. It means disciple (the word is a verb in the Greek text) all the nations. That is still an unfulfilled commission, and a responsibility from which the Church will not be relieved by any imaginary futuristic end-time scenario.

Have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers equipped the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ to the point that we all have attained to the unity inherent in our faith and in our knowledge of the Son of God — to mature manhood, measured by nothing less than the full stature of Christ? There is a destiny that God purposed for the church expressed in Ephesians 4:1-16 that will not be aborted prematurely by any imaginary futuristic end-time scenario.

The Church has not yet realized what God has purposed to do through the power that is now at work among us to do immeasurably more than all we can ask or conceive. There will yet be more glory to him in the church and in Christ Jesus from generation to generation for evermore! Amen (Ephesians 3:20-21).

Those who are obsessed with imaginary futuristic end-time scenarios are not focused on what God has in mind for the Church in this world.

The Church is God’s plan A for all he has purposed to do in this world, and there is no plan B.

Compared to what the scriptures expressly state regarding God’s yet to be fulfilled commission and destiny for the Church in this world, what could be more irrelevant than imaginary futuristic end-time scenarios?

[Hitch]

:smile:

Regarding the thread title, “Is everything between 70-2006 A.D. irrelevant?”:

Do you think nothing in history — and God’s purpose for the Church in this world — is relevant other than imaginary futuristic end-time scenarios?

Have all nations been discipled? The Greek text of Matthew 28:16-20 does not mean merely make disciples in all nation. It means disciple (the word is a verb in the Greek text) all the nations. That is still an unfulfilled commission, and a responsibility from which the Church will not be relieved by any imaginary futuristic end-time scenario.

Have apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers equipped the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ to the point that we all have attained to the unity inherent in our faith and in our knowledge of the Son of God — to mature manhood, measured by nothing less than the full stature of Christ? There is a destiny that God purposed for the church expressed in Ephesians 4:1-16 that will not be aborted prematurely by any imaginary futuristic end-time scenario.

The Church has not yet realized what God has purposed to do through the power that is now at work among us to do immeasurably more than all we can ask or conceive. There will yet be more glory to him in the church and in Christ Jesus from generation to generation for evermore! Amen (Ephesians 3:20-21).

Those who are obsessed with imaginary futuristic end-time scenarios are not focused on what God has in mind for the Church in this world.

The Church is God’s plan A for all he has purposed to do in this world, and there is no plan B.

Compared to what the scriptures expressly state regarding God’s yet to be fulfilled commission and destiny for the Church in this world, what could be more irrelevant than imaginary futuristic end-time scenarios?

PERF!

H

[Montfortt]

Some relevent Bible based occurances post 70AD.

1.Little horn's rise and demise(Rise and fall of Papal Rome's governing authority)

2.Shattering of statue in Daniel 2.(Plymouth colony's birth and creation of Mayflower compact and demise of rule by Monarchy and Church State system.)Birth of rule by the people.

3.Puritian church full of earthly concerns following the Separatist church's lead in coming to America.(Woman running in the wilderness in Revelation 12.)

3.Christ's coming and making war with the sword of his mouth during the Pergamum Church age.(Bible being translated into common languages and discovery that cannot be saved by the churches works)

Lot's more stuff too,

Wade Nye

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hey, all of you warring pereterists and dispensational futurists, why not reconsider premillennial historicism?Why do you have a link in your signature that chides Left Behind because it ignores the teaching of Luther and Calvin, when you yourself disagree with their amillennialism?

Additionally, where is your evidence that preterists consider the millennium irrelevant (you are aware, I assume, that they think it is occuring now)? That is a very strong claim, and I haven't seen any support for it yet.

[David_A_Reed]

Why do you have a link in your signature that chides Left Behind because it ignores the teaching of Luther and Calvin, when you yourself disagree with their amillennialism?

Additionally, where is your evidence that preterists consider the millennium irrelevant (you are aware, I assume, that they think it is occuring now)? That is a very strong claim, and I haven't seen any support for it yet.
I don't claim to agree on all points with Luther and Calvin. The point I make on the site itself is that the Protestant view of the Antichrist and the Tribulation that was taught from the time of the Reformation through the mid-1800's is tossed aside by the LEFT BEHIND novels.

My claim is that dispensationalists see 70 AD through the Rapture as a "parenthesis" with no prophetic fulfillment. And the preterists see prophecy as largely fulfilled in the first century. So both groups miss the significance of the rise of the papacy and Islam, the events of 1948 and 1967, and other fulfillments of prophecy over the centuries.

David

[bloodrose]

I agree a fair bit with the OP, to the extent where I would say that any thin branch of eschatology is probably wrong. I sympathise a lot with preterism, but it certainly does leave a lot unexplained. I also sympathise with historicism, although it cannot end there either, since Christ has not yet returned. But that doesn't rule out all eschatological significance in preterism or historicism. My understanding (and I could be wrong, but many bible commentarers (is that a word?) have helped convince me) of Revelationis that it is not all speaking of future events, but rather the spiritual history of the world since the dawn of time.

So while things are happening here on earth (i.e. AD70 and Papal rule) there are spiritual things happening parallel and connected to these events, and they are written as abstract concepts in Revelation. That is why I cannot close my eyes completely to any eschatological view.

Also, many of the old testament prophecies were fulfilled twofold. The first fulfilling happened shortly after they were written, thus the people of the time saw it coming true. But we would also say that many of the same prohpecies were fulfilled in Christ as well, so why can't it be the same for preterism and dispensationalism? Can't they both be kind of right?

Jeff.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I don't claim to agree on all points with Luther and Calvin. The point I make on the site itself is that the Protestant view of the Antichrist and the Tribulation that was taught from the time of the Reformation through the mid-1800's is tossed aside by the LEFT BEHIND novels.And the Protestant view of the millennium is tossed aside by you, so really if tossing aside mainstream Protestant claims about eschatology is a bad thing, you'd jump ship to amillennialism or postmillennialism.
My claim is that dispensationalists see 70 AD through the Rapture as a "parenthesis" with no prophetic fulfillment. And the preterists see prophecy as largely fulfilled in the first century. So both groups miss the significance of the rise of the papacy and Islam, the events of 1948 and 1967, and other fulfillments of prophecy over the centuries.

DavidSo why did you call this thread "Is everything between 70-2006 A.D. irrelevant?" I mean, how on earth could a postmil find that period irrelevant? Or was the title merely a rhetorical device without a lot of substance?

And since when is it s litmus test of a school of eschatology to count the number of current events that it claims are part of the end times scheme? Good heavens, what are they teaching exegetes these days?

[Jude3b]

Historicism blames Rome way too much for my tastes. Otherwise it is intriguing


True history shows us the sins of Romanism throughout the church age. And its in the book of Revelation for us to read and comprehend - if we belong to Christ.

[spauline]

Also, many of the old testament prophecies were fulfilled twofold. The first fulfilling happened shortly after they were written, thus the people of the time saw it coming true. But we would also say that many of the same prohpecies were fulfilled in Christ as well, so why can't it be the same for preterism and dispensationalism? Can't they both be kind of right?

Jeff.

Yes, I definitely agree with the idea that the Old Covenant can be fulfilled in the New. In fact, I would argue that the entire major sequence of events for the Jews in the Old Covenant will have a certain fulfillment with the Gentiles in the New. See this (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7HJjW9kieKlaV2usQKhFiwefjXc-?l=11&u=15&mx=19&lmt=5&p=6) and this (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7HJjW9kieKlaV2usQKhFiwefjXc-?l=1&u=5&mx=19&lmt=5&p=52).

GB,
scott

[BurningBush--U]

Hi Kaine.

I'm a DF and I am not sure that Israel's reestablishment in '48 was THE fulfillment of prophecy. There seem to be some items missing, like the control of Jerusalem and the temple mount specifically. However, It may be the beginning of the prophecy... I'll let you know on the way up...
The time frame is off IMO

That little country in no way is Israel

that should be a clue

or not

There is a Country still around in the Modern Erra that does meet the date and timeframes and more.


But I have digressed.

Every year or selected spans of years from hundreds of years even thousands of years even from the garden to present are all overlapping
in
what
is
going on
and all
the way up to today, including this year 2006

They all meet certain time-line specifics

but ya gotta know the laws and how they apply

I only know a few bites
there are many bites of
meat in a meal

Chomp, chomp.

[BurningBush--U]

Hello Hitch

It's is simply that DF is confused about certain things as are Preterist. In DF attemp to bring Israel into Some kind of Prophetic fulfillment they as preterist have overlooked ONE important thing. Israel Doesn't need any prophetic Fulfillment to inhabit the land of Israel or Jerusalem it is their destiny written in Blood and stone.

Literal Jerusalem is their Mother and they are her Children. Just as heavenly Jerusalem is our Mother. Their Promise was an Earthly one. Ours is a heavenaly one. What Christ said about the fig tree is still true. Israel had been occuping the land of palenstine at his time even before the maccabean revolt. The fig was well rooted its twigs weren't tender. When God chooses that Israel needs to occupy Jerusalem he can do it when he chooses because be its their Inheritance. DF has failed to see this. Israels occupations serve some purpose for YHWY God and he uses them to perform his will. Christ warning carried both a current and yet future message.

Can you see the Issue before God. Christ telling us Ok Guy's look I need you to go out and spread this Gospel and they are going to stone you and beat you and kill you But when I come the second time I will bring my reward with me. Hey! but that's a couple of a thousand years off. His warning was Immediate because the work wasn't Done. But his Promise was immediate. This Day can be our day of salvation for us it's not the future its the now. Because CHrist had set up a heavanly Jerusalem Of which when he was done here he was going to go and prepare and office for us. But Gods plan still rocked on. And Israels has shown to be an Intigeral part of it at Gods will not ours.

LIke Christ said no man Knows only God the Father and from the pages of the bible Israel is in the middle of it even if they don't believe in Jesus Christ. He died for all not because we believed in him but because he believed in us.

peace.

They are not and can not be Israel and they even admit it.

Don't go by names alone, go by the pudding.

[BurningBush--U]

Well thats about as conflicted as something can get. How anyone could have a 'written destiny' that has nothing to do with prophecy escapes me. No Maud you cant open with Israel Doesn't need any prophetic Fulfillment to inhabit the land of Israel or Jerusalemand follow with citations of prophecy. / Again you allude to prophecy, Now is the time today is the day of salvation is Paul's apostolic interpretation of a propehcy to Israel. Irsael's glory and salvation came at the Nativity. And all who were called and taught by the Father recognized His Messiah. Dont forget, Christ's entire ministry was primarily directed toward the 'lost sheep of Israel'. His spiritual blessings bestowed upon the Church were what He brought to Israel and are ours by extension. First the natural then the spiritual. You cant have both sides of an argument. You have repeatedly claimed Israel needs no prophetic fulfillments to occupy the Land, on one hand, on the other hand you repeatedly cite prophecies .

Take care

Hitch
:lol: :teeth: :blush: :wink: :ahem: :smile: :ale: :yipee: :hug: :joy: :whistle: :flowers: :cheers: :attn: :idea: :b_bow: