Coming soon: the Temple in Jerusalem!

[David Ben-Ariel]

I have been involved in Church of God debates about whether or not there will be a literal Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns from Heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Why should there be any debate? Doesn't the Law and the Prophets Yashua said He didn't come to destroy (but magnify) call for such a holy Temple? Why should today's professing Christians have a problem with the Temple if the early Jewish Church clearly didn't and continued to meet there? After all, it's to be a House of Prayer for ALL Peoples, eh?

[John from Ebla]

I have been involved in Church of God debates about whether or not there will be a literal Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns from Heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Why should there be any debate? Doesn't the Law and the Prophets Yashua said He didn't come to destroy (but magnify) call for such a holy Temple? Why should today's professing Christians have a problem with the Temple if the early Jewish Church clearly didn't and continued to meet there? After all, it's to be a House of Prayer for ALL Peoples, eh?


Because in Christianity the temple of God is the body of Christ, which we are part off- the spirit dwells in us and teaches us. (Matthew 26:59-64 and 1 Cor 3:16.) The temple to be built is done by those that do not believe in Jesus as their savior. Yes, Peter went in the temple to preach the risen Jesus, who God made Lord and Christ, on and after the day of Pentecost, but they soon left because of persecution.

The Jews were given 40 years to change their way and accept Jesus. (Jesus was about 30 when he started his ministry and Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD = 40 years.) Israel were given 40 years in the wilderness.

The coming Temple is for the unbelieving Jews. :smile:

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[Ted]

I have been involved in Church of God debates about whether or not there will be a literal Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns from Heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Why should there be any debate? Doesn't the Law and the Prophets Yashua said He didn't come to destroy (but magnify) call for such a holy Temple? Why should today's professing Christians have a problem with the Temple if the early Jewish Church clearly didn't and continued to meet there? After all, it's to be a House of Prayer for ALL Peoples, eh?

This prophecy has already been fulfilled in the church. Believers ARE a temple (1 Pet 2). They ARE Jerusalem (Heb 12). This is a mystery that was not revealed before (Rom 4:13).

The NT clearly identifies the end of any future based on physical descent. There is no hint of that ever being reversed.

It is a fundamental principle of interpretation that later revelation clarifies and expands earlier revelation. Thus, the NT is more informed that the OT. (It's not more inspired.) When you try to force an OT understanding into a truth already expanded by the NT, you are denying the author of the NT.

Ted

[David_A_Reed]

I have been involved in Church of God debates about whether or not there will be a literal Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns from Heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Folks are likely debating this topic because they have been influenced by the LEFT BEHIND series, since these are the most popular writings supporting this idea with scores of millions of copies in print. Readers expect a coming Antichrist to rebuild the temple and become the abomination of desolation by sitting down in the temple in God's place.

Martin Luther's writings are less popular today, but he had some interesting things to say on this topic:

"the abomination of desolation. Here Christ now says, When ye shall see this one standing in the temple, then take heed (he wants to say) for that is a sure sign from Daniel's prophecy that his kingdom is now at an end; and do not let yourselves be deceived because the Jews and weak Christians think that it shall never be destroyed. But the abomination of which Daniel writes is that the Emperor Cajus, as history tells, had put his image in the temple at Jerusalem as an idol, for the people to worship, after everything there had been destroyed."
That was from Martin Luther's "Sermon for the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Trinity; Matthew 24:15-28", from his Church Postil, first published in 1525
available online at http://www.orlutheran.com/mlsemt2415.html

What about a future application as well? Luther added:

"this passage in Daniel concerning the abomination applies also to us. For we also have indeed a real abomination of desolation sitting in a holy place, namely: in Christendom and in the consciences of men, where God alone should sit and reign ... what is the Pope doing? He is sitting not in the natural temple or God's house, but in the spiritual, in the new and living temple of which Paul says: 'If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are,' I Cor. 3, 16-17. ...Thus you see whether the Pope is not the greatest arch-abomination of all abominations, to whom Christ and Daniel refer; and the true Antichrist, of whom it is written that he sitteth in the temple of God ... And he can in truth be called an 'abomination of desolation'..."
(same source)

For those concerned about the literal Temple Mount in Jerusalem, consider that Luther and Calvin both wrote of the papacy and Islam as Antichrist:

"Lyke as Mahomet saith ty his Alcoran is ye soveraine wisdome, so saith the Pope of his owne decrees: For they be the two hornes of Antichrist."
—John Calvin
The Sermons of M. John Calvin upon the Fifth Booke of Moses called Deuteronomie, translated by Arthur Golding, first published in London, 1583, from a facsimile reprint by Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.

"the Pope is the spirit of antichrist, and the Turk is the flesh of antichrist. They help each other in their murderous work. The latter slaughters bodily by the sword; and the former spiritually by doctrine."
—Martin Luther, Tischreden, Weimer ed., 1, No. 330

So, if the pope sat down in the spiritual temple (the Church), Islam similarly sat down in God's place on Temple Mount and built Antichrist's temple -- which is still sitting there to this day.

In view of these fulfillments, both spiritual and literal, there is no need for any additional temple to be built there to fulfill prophecy before the return of Christ.

[Ted]

David,

Nice work.

Ted

[dizzle]

I wouldn't doubt one might be built. And it would be an abomination to God (if it were an actual Temple with actual sacrifices)

[dizzle]

Doesn't the Law and the Prophets Yashua said He didn't come to destroy (but magnify) call for such a holy Temple?

Doesn't the New Testament say that their house was left to them desolate and that He in fact predicted that He in fact would and did destroy the Temple.

As I have continually said, the only real reason I would support the rebuilding of a sacrificial Temple is to get all the PeTA nuts out of here and move them over there.

:popcorn:

[Hitch]

I have been involved in Church of God debates about whether or not there will be a literal Temple in Jerusalem before Christ returns from Heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Why should there be any debate? Doesn't the Law and the Prophets Yashua said He didn't come to destroy (but magnify) call for such a holy Temple? Why should today's professing Christians have a problem with the Temple if the early Jewish Church clearly didn't and continued to meet there? After all, it's to be a House of Prayer for ALL Peoples, eh?
before Christ returns from Heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth.


Too late.

[technomage]

As I have continually said, the only real reason I would support the rebuilding of a sacrificial Temple is to get all the PeTA nuts out of here and move them over there.

:popcorn:

Hmmm ... and the more radical religious Jews tend to get positively hostile when someone interferes with performing religious functions, don't they?

Save me some popcorn! :grin:

[studyhound]

Hmmm ... and the more radical religious Jews tend to get positively hostile when someone interferes with performing religious functions, don't they?

Save me some popcorn! :grin:
:rofl:

[dizzle]

What is funny is how different viewpoints in Christianity lead to radically different conclusions.

If a temple is ever built I will take that as (another) sign that Christ is not coming soon.

A one-world government to me, in theory, is not alarming - in fact in my view with the majority of the world being converted prior to Christ's return, I think such may in fact happen.

The prince that shall come, to me, is Christ.

Dispensationalism, to me, inadvertantly in several areas turns the work of Christ into that of the devil and vice versa.

[eschaton]

Back in the 19th and early 20th century dispensationalists were calling for a re-establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine to fulfill prophecy. More traditional Christians pooh-poohed the idea.

Guess what happened.

[Ted]

Back in the 19th and early 20th century dispensationalists were calling for a re-establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine to fulfill prophecy. More traditional Christians pooh-poohed the idea.

Guess what happened.

You commit two key errors in this statement.

1. It was "to fulfill prophecy." The Bible says nothing about re-establishing a Jewish state. All that is said is that it is "left desolate" (Matt 23:38). There is no prophecy about restoring it. The kingdom was given to the church (Luke 12:32) and there is no text that says it will be taken from the church.

2. You mistake a SECULAR entity labeled Israel for a biblical entity. They are not and never will be the same.

With DeeDee, I will not argue that no temple will ever be rebuilt. It would be a great way for Satan to draw people toward a perversion of the gospel.

Ted

[eschaton]

You commit two key errors in this statement.

1. It was "to fulfill prophecy." The Bible says nothing about re-establishing a Jewish state. All that is said is that it is "left desolate" (Matt 23:38). There is no prophecy about restoring it. The kingdom was given to the church (Luke 12:32) and there is no text that says it will be taken from the church.

2. You mistake a SECULAR entity labeled Israel for a biblical entity. They are not and never will be the same.

With DeeDee, I will not argue that no temple will ever be rebuilt. It would be a great way for Satan to draw people toward a perversion of the gospel.

Ted

I do nothing of the sort Ted. I'm not saying it is my opinion that it fulfills prophecy, although I'm not going to rule that out since I agree with the Epistle of Barnabas that the future is hidden in allegory. I'm saying it's the dispensationalists who were saying that. You may consider the dispensationalists wrong, but that's just your opinion. All of Bible prophecy isn't contained in Mat 12 or 23.

[eschaton]

Basically, I think it's presumptions to say the temple in Jerusalem will be or won't be rebuilt. I agree with you, I think, that the true temple is His body, the church.

[Hitch]

Back in the 19th and early 20th century dispensationalists were calling for a re-establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine to fulfill prophecy. More traditional Christians pooh-poohed the idea.

Guess what happened. Guess? What thappened is obvious. The DFs equalled Edgar Cayse's error rate.

[David Ben-Ariel]

It was "to fulfill prophecy." The Bible says nothing about re-establishing a Jewish state.

The Bible says PLENTY about the restoration of the Jews to the Promised Land of Israel as a sovereign state:

God promised to "save Zion, and build the cities of Judah" (Ps. 69:35). (He doesn't refer to them as "Palestinian" cities!) God has faithfully done that by rewarding Jewish efforts (Annuit Coeptus) and respecting their blood, sweat and tears! (Isa. 61:4; Ps. 102:13-14). God has used the Jews to make the desert blossom as the rose and protected them during this conversion process, just as Moses requested (Deut. 33:7).

I praise God for having blessed me to have lived in eight kibbutzim (collective-farms)throughout Israel that have helped to fulfill these pioneer prophecies!

God clearly prophesied through Zechariah chapters 12-14 that the Jews would AGAIN be living in their ancient capital of JERUSALEM, with their own rulers, and that the "United Nations" would oppose them and ultimately be defeated. Zechariah also shows the long-awaited recognition of Jesus by the Jews as God's Son and Judah's Firstborn and the heartfelt repentance of the political (House of David) and religious (House of Levi) establishment. In fact, Jesus said that the Jews in Jerusalem wouldn't see Him again until they had this necessary change of heart (Matt. 23:39).

Zechariah also reveals that the Jews would again be a FORMIDABLE MILITARY POWER in the Middle East with God working in and through and for them. Many Israelis KNOW that God has been their true General and performed many miracles on their behalf. I've heard Gershon Salomon, chairman of the Temple Mount Faithful, recount his miraculous experience of divine protection on the Golan Heights many times.

It's important to note that God has inspired the holy prophets to write about real flesh and blood JEWS living in Israel - not Jewish imposters!

Why? Because those suffering from the sickness of anti-Semitism are out to spread doubt and confusion about Israel's Jewish identity! They publish slanderous hate literature attempting to poison minds against the Jews by promoting quack racial theories and Nazi propaganda.

It's nothing less than Satan's desperate efforts to deny that God has the power to fulfill prophecy! Bible-believers reject their bitter lies knowing God's Word is true!

Zechariah also agrees with the New Testament prophecies that reveal Jerusalem as a thriving Jewish city that will suffer under a harsh Gentile occupation just before the Messiah arrives in time (Rev. 11:2; Zech. 14:2).

Christ will liberate Jerusalem and secure it as His headquarters! Jerusalem, the site of David's Throne, will be the seat of God's government! Jesus, like the prophet Daniel, foresaw that Jewish-Christians would be living and working in a Jewish State. They'll witness the historic restoration of animal sacrifices and their abrupt cessation by an evil European force, quickly followed by the "abomination of desolation" that triggers World War III (Matt. 24:15-16; Dan. 12:11).

Meanwhile, God's Church (or select individuals if the Church continues to shirk its responsibility) must ANNOUNCE TO THE CITIES OF JUDAH (the prophecy doesn't refer to them as "Palestinian" cities or "Israeli-occupied") that Messiah's about to appear! We're to boldly offer Judah the hope and comfort that a TRUE PEACE is coming and to get ready for it (Isa. 40:1-3). We're to help prepare Israel for the shock of a GLORIFIED CHRIST REVEALED AT LAST (vs. 5) and lead them to expect an audience with a DIVINE KING whose ROYAL RADIANCE will illuminate every nation!

We must identify Yashua (Jesus) as the "Son of Man" from Heaven that Daniel previewed (Dan. 7:13-14), and stress that Zechariah gave an "eyewitness account" of this same DIVINE SAVIOR descending from Heaven to reign as LORD from Jerusalem over the whole earth (Zech. 14:3-4, 9, 16).

[David Ben-Ariel]

This prophecy has already been fulfilled in the church. Believers ARE a temple (1 Pet 2). They ARE Jerusalem (Heb 12). This is a mystery that was not revealed before (Rom 4:13).

Ever hear of DUALITY? Just because the chosen few Christians are "spiritual Jews" doesn't mean God isn't interested in fulfilling His prophecies for Judah in these last days. God is not a liar. He is working in both the physical and spiritual realm, and both have their God-ordained role and purpose and ultimately compliment one another.

The NT clearly identifies the end of any future based on physical descent.

The NT rejects such a demonic replacement theology.

When you try to force an OT understanding into a truth already expanded by the NT, you are denying the author of the NT.

When you vainly attempt to undermine the Law and the Prophets that Yashua upheld, then you're not following Yashua and are denying His teachings. You had better read and heed Paul's warning to the Gentiles not to dare boast against the Israelite root.

[David Ben-Ariel]

The early Church continued to gladly worship at the Temple, so contrary to
the carnal attitude of our Gentilized Israelite Church today! Just read
and believe the Book of Acts. Paul even sacrificed at the Temple! The (too
detached from our Hebrew roots) Church of God today would probably
disfellowship him! And history shows the Jewish Church of God gladly
continued to fellowship and worship in the Temple UNTIL God left it,
saying, "Let us depart hence." And the Church left and headed for the
hills, left for PELLA, and the rest if history.

The Temple of God about to be built is sanctioned by God since His authors
wrote under holy inspiration, the two witnesses of Paul and John both
testifying it's the Temple of GOD. God is calling it His own! Who are we
to disagree with God or his apostles? What chutzpah! What SPIRITUAL
BLINDNESS. Yet such think they're so spiritual and forget that the
physical reflects the spiritual.

[David Ben-Ariel]

What is a human being? A creature of flesh and blood. However, that flesh and blood is more than just a rotting creature on its countdown to death if the Spirit of God dwells within the mind of the individual and a building of stone, especially a BUILDING COMMANDED BY GOD is more than just any other building when God has commanded it and placed His Name there and His Holy Spirit. Yashua rebuked this nonsense that would forget what God has sanctified remains sanctified when He made reference to Daniel's prophecy for our time and foresaw the Beast polluting the Temple, trespassing on the most HOLY site. It was STILL HOLY to Yashua, and to truly converted Christians who submit to the Word of God over Church traditions, it is
STILL HOLY.

Please don't make back-to-back posts.

[Daco]

For what it's worth, my opinion is that a new Temple will be built in Jerusalem and the sacrificial worship of God by Judaism will resume before Jesus returns for the church. That does not mean that animal sacrifice will be accepted by God, since Jesus' death on the cross was the fulfillment of that (Isaiah 66:1 Where is the house that you build me? - because the Islamic mosque of the Dome of the Rock sits on the rightful place for the Temple).

John wrote the book of Revelation approximately 80-85 AD, ten to fifteen years after the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD by Titus but he spoke of measuring the Temple in Rev.11:1-2. This assures me that there will in fact be a physical Temple built again in Jerusalem.

[John from Ebla]

For what it's worth, my opinion is that a new Temple will be built in Jerusalem and the sacrificial worship of God by Judaism will resume before Jesus returns for the church. That does not mean that animal sacrifice will be accepted by God, since Jesus' death on the cross was the fulfillment of that (Isaiah 66:1 Where is the house that you build me? - because the Islamic mosque of the Dome of the Rock sits on the rightful place for the Temple).

John wrote the book of Revelation approximately 80-85 AD, ten to fifteen years after the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD by Titus but he spoke of measuring the Temple in Rev.11:1-2. This assures me that there will in fact be a physical Temple built again in Jerusalem.


l agree with you, but is this not about gathering all the Jews for another :lol: Idiot to repeat what someone else did around 1945.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Daco]

l agree with you, but is this not about gathering all the Jews for another :lol: Idiot to repeat what someone else did around 1945.

Kind regards
John From Ebla
I'm not sure I follow you...are you talking about Hitler and the Nazis (1933-1945) or are you talking about the partitioning of "Palestine" by Great Britain in preparation for the establishment of a Jewish State?

The new Temple will be a compromise between Jews and Arabs and probably led by a UN or European Union leader. John spoke of the outer courts of the Temple being given to the Gentiles and Jerusalem will be tread under foot 3 1/2 years (Revelation 11:2). It is this Temple that the antichrist will stop the sacrificial worship at the end of the 3 1/2 years and present himself to be worshipped as God (Daniel 9:27, 2Thessalonians 2:3-12). According to Daniel's vision of the Seventy Weeks, this will be the first half of the final 7 years determined upon the Jews and upon Jerusalem. At the end of the 7 year period Jesus Christ will return to the earth accompanied by the church to establish His kingdom on earth and reign as King of the Jews on the throne of David for a thousand years.

[Ted]

All of Bible prophecy isn't contained in Mat 12 or 23.
Agreed. But all Bible prophecy must agree with Matthew 12 and 23.

The Bible says PLENTY about the restoration of the Jews to the Promised Land of Israel as a sovereign state… (OT citations from Psalms, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc.)
Ah! Another member of the Flat Bible Society. For those who are not aware of this organization, let me explain.

The Flat Bible Society (hereafter the FBS) believes that since all scripture is equally inspired, all scripture contains equal truth. Put a different way, once something is recorded in scripture, no later statement can change it in any way. This denies the possibility that a later statement might add to or modify the understanding of an OT passage. This further implies that nothing new was ever added to the fund of knowledge of the Fathers (cf. 2 Pet 3:4).

Of course, such a view of scripture is completely at odds with the writers of scripture. For example, Abraham didn’t have the Law (Torah). Paul (Gal 3:19) makes it clear that Abraham’s lineage didn’t have as much understanding as they needed, so the Torah was added. But Paul doesn’t stop there. He explicitly declares that (Eph 3:4-6) “the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body.

Let’s notice the key (highlighted) parts of Paul’s statement. First, contrary to the FBS, there are things that were not revealed before. In other words, the Bible is not flat. The quantity of information in it is larger as time goes on, and the later information tells us that Gentiles are heirs to the same promises that the Israelites according to the flesh (Rom 4:1, 9:3) claim. But the NT doesn’t stop there.

John the Baptist (Matt 3:8-10) declares that the claim of inheritance based on descent is worthless. Paul finishes this discussion by pointing out that the promise to Abraham was by faith, and his descendants who claim the promise based on Torah “nullify” the promise (Rom 4:13-14). At the same time, Torah itself cannot nullify the promise (Gal 3:17). Instead, true descent from Abraham, in God’s eyes is reckoned by faith in Christ (Gal 3:26-29).

The true heirs of that promise (Heb 6:17-20) have Jesus as their High Priest in the heavenly temple. Of course, this denies the possibility of the heirs ever being concerned with a temple on earth again…

When we consider the land promise (Gen 15:18-21), we find that Abraham did not receive its fulfillment (Heb 11:8-9). Later, David (Psa 37:9) declares that only those who “wait on the Lord” will inherit the land. Jesus (Matt 5:5) expands this promise to the entire world, confirmed by Paul in Romans 4:13, using the unambiguous kosmos. It should be noted that Paul here, like in Galatians 3, explicitly declares that inheritance is based purely on faith.

When we combine these statements we find that, contrary to the FBS, all of the promises given to Israel of old will be fulfilled in the church. And when we look at prophecy, the same pattern appears.

“Jerusalem” is the focus of the prophecies noted in Zechariah. But in Hebrews 12:18-24 we find that “Jerusalem” is now the church, not a spot on the ground. Thus, the church is the recipient of the unfulfilled prophecies of the OT for “Jerusalem.”

The FBS demands that all the OT prophecies in “Jewish” language have to be fulfilled for genetic Israelites on the specific spot of ground recorded. They commit the same error as the Pharisees and Sadducees who challenged John the Baptist. He knew that the answer was in faith, not genetics. And he told them, before Jesus or any apostle came on the scene.

We should consider the consequences of an FBS position. It declares that the orderly God who has a single plan to save men is really a schizophrenic God who has two completely different plans. One is for a limited group of genetically identified people, who have to revert to animal sacrifices and salvation by works. The other is for everyone else who is not restricted by this genetic “blessing.” Those can depend on the works of the one true God, who became one of us to save us. Of course, we have two final items to consider regarding the FBS.

First, how much “Jewish” heritage is required for a person to be a “Jew”? Jacob’s descendants lived in Egypt for 430 years, during which intermarriage with Egyptians was a virtual certainty, spreading “Jewish” genes throughout the Egyptian populace. Similarly, the ten Northern tribes were thoroughly dispersed, spreading their gene pool throughout what became the peoples of Europe and Central Asia. Are all Egyptians and Northern peoples “Jews” because they have an element of “Jewish” ancestry?

Second, “seed of Abraham” (Ps 105:6; cf. Gal 3:29) is a common expression describing a person’s status as a Jew. Ishmael was Abraham’s son and father of the Arab peoples. By this definition the Arabs are “Jews.” If this definition is rigorously applied, then the FBS Armageddon scenarios that have the Arab/Israeli conflict at their center are actually “Jew” against “Jew.” The allegedly evil Arab hordes are actually righteous Jews! It’s enough to make even a rabbi’s head spin!

It’s time to recognize that the FBS is wrongheaded. Progressive revelation tells us more about the truth as time goes on. That means that the NT writers who interpret OT terms and prophecies must be regarded as authoritative when we interpret those prophecies and terms. If this is done, the FBS claim that various prophecies will be fulfilled “literally” on specific plots of land with specific genetically defined people is simply incorrect.

It should be clear by now that my original assertion is in fact correct. There are no prophecies in the Bible that now call for a return of physical Jews to a physical plot of land. You see, the Bible isn’t flat.

Ever hear of DUALITY? Just because the chosen few Christians are "spiritual Jews" doesn't mean God isn't interested in fulfilling His prophecies for Judah in these last days. God is not a liar. He is working in both the physical and spiritual realm, and both have their God-ordained role and purpose and ultimately compliment one another.
Once again, you deny scripture. The physical descendants of Abraham used to have a purpose in God’s economy. They were to be His missionaries (Gen 12:3). They refused to carry out that mission, instead becoming insular to the point that they denied and murdered Christ. At the end of the 70 weeks of probation, Stephen, as God’s prosecuting attorney, brought the covenant lawsuit that ended their status. The birthright blessings (Exod 4:22) were removed and given to the church (Luke 12:32). God had labored with the Jews (the strengthened covenant in the seventieth week), but they wouldn’t listen. Their time was over.

The NT rejects such a demonic replacement theology.
Such language indicates that you are unable to use the NT to support your position, so you yell a bit louder. It’s unfortunate that you, like most members of the FBS, aren’t able to participate in a discussion using the polite forms of the English language. BTW, “duality” is an excuse to avoid the facts I have just noted. Jesus did not say that the kingdom would be left with the Jews while given to the church. He said it would be taken from the Jews and given to the church. This leaves no room for duality.

All scripture is equally true, but not all scripture contains equal truth. When the NT states that there is no difference between people, regardless of status or heritage (Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11), this is a truth that was not made clear in the OT. But it is an eternal truth, and its consequences apply properly to our understanding of prophecy.

Get rid of your flat Bible. Stop calling names. Listen carefully to the word of God BEFORE developing your theology. It’s the only proper way to act.

Ted

[Hitch]

The Bible says PLENTY about the restoration of the Jews to the Promised Land of Israel as a sovereign state:

God promised to "save Zion, and build the cities of Judah" (Ps. 69:35). (He doesn't refer to them as "Palestinian" cities!) God has faithfully done that by rewarding Jewish efforts (Annuit Coeptus) and respecting their blood, sweat and tears! (Isa. 61:4; Ps. 102:13-14). God has used the Jews to make the desert blossom as the rose and protected them during this conversion process, just as Moses requested (Deut. 33:7).

I praise God for having blessed me to have lived in eight kibbutzim (collective-farms)throughout Israel that have helped to fulfill these pioneer prophecies!

God clearly prophesied through Zechariah chapters 12-14 that the Jews would AGAIN be living in their ancient capital of JERUSALEM, with their own rulers, and that the "United Nations" would oppose them and ultimately be defeated. Zechariah also shows the long-awaited recognition of Jesus by the Jews as God's Son and Judah's Firstborn and the heartfelt repentance of the political (House of David) and religious (House of Levi) establishment. In fact, Jesus said that the Jews in Jerusalem wouldn't see Him again until they had this necessary change of heart (Matt. 23:39).

Zechariah also reveals that the Jews would again be a FORMIDABLE MILITARY POWER in the Middle East with God working in and through and for them. Many Israelis KNOW that God has been their true General and performed many miracles on their behalf. I've heard Gershon Salomon, chairman of the Temple Mount Faithful, recount his miraculous experience of divine protection on the Golan Heights many times.

It's important to note that God has inspired the holy prophets to write about real flesh and blood JEWS living in Israel - not Jewish imposters!

Why? Because those suffering from the sickness of anti-Semitism are out to spread doubt and confusion about Israel's Jewish identity! They publish slanderous hate literature attempting to poison minds against the Jews by promoting quack racial theories and Nazi propaganda.

It's nothing less than Satan's desperate efforts to deny that God has the power to fulfill prophecy! Bible-believers reject their bitter lies knowing God's Word is true!

Zechariah also agrees with the New Testament prophecies that reveal Jerusalem as a thriving Jewish city that will suffer under a harsh Gentile occupation just before the Messiah arrives in time (Rev. 11:2; Zech. 14:2).

Christ will liberate Jerusalem and secure it as His headquarters! Jerusalem, the site of David's Throne, will be the seat of God's government! Jesus, like the prophet Daniel, foresaw that Jewish-Christians would be living and working in a Jewish State. They'll witness the historic restoration of animal sacrifices and their abrupt cessation by an evil European force, quickly followed by the "abomination of desolation" that triggers World War III (Matt. 24:15-16; Dan. 12:11).

Meanwhile, God's Church (or select individuals if the Church continues to shirk its responsibility) must ANNOUNCE TO THE CITIES OF JUDAH (the prophecy doesn't refer to them as "Palestinian" cities or "Israeli-occupied") that Messiah's about to appear! We're to boldly offer Judah the hope and comfort that a TRUE PEACE is coming and to get ready for it (Isa. 40:1-3). We're to help prepare Israel for the shock of a GLORIFIED CHRIST REVEALED AT LAST (vs. 5) and lead them to expect an audience with a DIVINE KING whose ROYAL RADIANCE will illuminate every nation!

We must identify Yashua (Jesus) as the "Son of Man" from Heaven that Daniel previewed (Dan. 7:13-14), and stress that Zechariah gave an "eyewitness account" of this same DIVINE SAVIOR descending from Heaven to reign as LORD from Jerusalem over the whole earth (Zech. 14:3-4, 9, 16). LOL Its all so cute but... Im curious you have made a great deal that the prophecy doesn't refer to them as "Palestinian" cities And then you go on help prepare Israel,,, I wont bother with your positions, they have been battered here , previously,so much there is no point. They are ,to a point, the natural result of your inverted logic.ANNOUNCE TO THE CITIES OF JUDAH Where is this country JUDAH?

[Hitch]

Agreed. But all Bible prophecy must agree with Matthew 12 and 23.


Ah! Another member of the Flat Bible Society. For those who are not aware of this organization, let me explain.

The Flat Bible Society (hereafter the FBS) believes that since all scripture is equally inspired, all scripture contains equal truth. Put a different way, once something is recorded in scripture, no later statement can change it in any way. This denies the possibility that a later statement might add to or modify the understanding of an OT passage. This further implies that nothing new was ever added to the fund of knowledge of the Fathers (cf. 2 Pet 3:4).

Of course, such a view of scripture is completely at odds with the writers of scripture. For example, Abraham didn’t have the Law (Torah). Paul (Gal 3:19) makes it clear that Abraham’s lineage didn’t have as much understanding as they needed, so the Torah was added. But Paul doesn’t stop there. He explicitly declares that (Eph 3:4-6) “the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body.

Let’s notice the key (highlighted) parts of Paul’s statement. First, contrary to the FBS, there are things that were not revealed before. In other words, the Bible is not flat. The quantity of information in it is larger as time goes on, and the later information tells us that Gentiles are heirs to the same promises that the Israelites according to the flesh (Rom 4:1, 9:3) claim. But the NT doesn’t stop there.

John the Baptist (Matt 3:8-10) declares that the claim of inheritance based on descent is worthless. Paul finishes this discussion by pointing out that the promise to Abraham was by faith, and his descendants who claim the promise based on Torah “nullify” the promise (Rom 4:13-14). At the same time, Torah itself cannot nullify the promise (Gal 3:17). Instead, true descent from Abraham, in God’s eyes is reckoned by faith in Christ (Gal 3:26-29).

The true heirs of that promise (Heb 6:17-20) have Jesus as their High Priest in the heavenly temple. Of course, this denies the possibility of the heirs ever being concerned with a temple on earth again…

When we consider the land promise (Gen 15:18-21), we find that Abraham did not receive its fulfillment (Heb 11:8-9). Later, David (Psa 37:9) declares that only those who “wait on the Lord” will inherit the land. Jesus (Matt 5:5) expands this promise to the entire world, confirmed by Paul in Romans 4:13, using the unambiguous kosmos. It should be noted that Paul here, like in Galatians 3, explicitly declares that inheritance is based purely on faith.

When we combine these statements we find that, contrary to the FBS, all of the promises given to Israel of old will be fulfilled in the church. And when we look at prophecy, the same pattern appears.

“Jerusalem” is the focus of the prophecies noted in Zechariah. But in Hebrews 12:18-24 we find that “Jerusalem” is now the church, not a spot on the ground. Thus, the church is the recipient of the unfulfilled prophecies of the OT for “Jerusalem.”

The FBS demands that all the OT prophecies in “Jewish” language have to be fulfilled for genetic Israelites on the specific spot of ground recorded. They commit the same error as the Pharisees and Sadducees who challenged John the Baptist. He knew that the answer was in faith, not genetics. And he told them, before Jesus or any apostle came on the scene.

We should consider the consequences of an FBS position. It declares that the orderly God who has a single plan to save men is really a schizophrenic God who has two completely different plans. One is for a limited group of genetically identified people, who have to revert to animal sacrifices and salvation by works. The other is for everyone else who is not restricted by this genetic “blessing.” Those can depend on the works of the one true God, who became one of us to save us. Of course, we have two final items to consider regarding the FBS.

First, how much “Jewish” heritage is required for a person to be a “Jew”? Jacob’s descendants lived in Egypt for 430 years, during which intermarriage with Egyptians was a virtual certainty, spreading “Jewish” genes throughout the Egyptian populace. Similarly, the ten Northern tribes were thoroughly dispersed, spreading their gene pool throughout what became the peoples of Europe and Central Asia. Are all Egyptians and Northern peoples “Jews” because they have an element of “Jewish” ancestry?

Second, “seed of Abraham” (Ps 105:6; cf. Gal 3:29) is a common expression describing a person’s status as a Jew. Ishmael was Abraham’s son and father of the Arab peoples. By this definition the Arabs are “Jews.” If this definition is rigorously applied, then the FBS Armageddon scenarios that have the Arab/Israeli conflict at their center are actually “Jew” against “Jew.” The allegedly evil Arab hordes are actually righteous Jews! It’s enough to make even a rabbi’s head spin!

It’s time to recognize that the FBS is wrongheaded. Progressive revelation tells us more about the truth as time goes on. That means that the NT writers who interpret OT terms and prophecies must be regarded as authoritative when we interpret those prophecies and terms. If this is done, the FBS claim that various prophecies will be fulfilled “literally” on specific plots of land with specific genetically defined people is simply incorrect.

It should be clear by now that my original assertion is in fact correct. There are no prophecies in the Bible that now call for a return of physical Jews to a physical plot of land. You see, the Bible isn’t flat.


Once again, you deny scripture. The physical descendants of Abraham used to have a purpose in God’s economy. They were to be His missionaries (Gen 12:3). They refused to carry out that mission, instead becoming insular to the point that they denied and murdered Christ. At the end of the 70 weeks of probation, Stephen, as God’s prosecuting attorney, brought the covenant lawsuit that ended their status. The birthright blessings (Exod 4:22) were removed and given to the church (Luke 12:32). God had labored with the Jews (the strengthened covenant in the seventieth week), but they wouldn’t listen. Their time was over.


Such language indicates that you are unable to use the NT to support your position, so you yell a bit louder. It’s unfortunate that you, like most members of the FBS, aren’t able to participate in a discussion using the polite forms of the English language. BTW, “duality” is an excuse to avoid the facts I have just noted. Jesus did not say that the kingdom would be left with the Jews while given to the church. He said it would be taken from the Jews and given to the church. This leaves no room for duality.

All scripture is equally true, but not all scripture contains equal truth. When the NT states that there is no difference between people, regardless of status or heritage (Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11), this is a truth that was not made clear in the OT. But it is an eternal truth, and its consequences apply properly to our understanding of prophecy.

Get rid of your flat Bible. Stop calling names. Listen carefully to the word of God BEFORE developing your theology. It’s the only proper way to act.

TedYou old NAZI you....

[David Ben-Ariel]

Should Israel guarantee Christian and Jewish religious rights upon the Temple Mount against Muslim wishes?

Click here to VOTE. (http://www.selectpoll.com/FREE/poll.php?pid=templemount)

These percentages indicate the percent of poll voters who selected these particular options.

100% selected:
Yes! It's a holy site to Christians and Judaism's holiest site.

0% selected:
No! The Muslims would riot and lives would be lost.

[runecrow]

I don't see an earthly temple being rebuilt in scripture. To my notion, as has already been said, it is evidently clear that the temple is the church. Has Israel been replaced by the church? I don't see this as being the case, but do see that some of the branches of Israel have been broken off and others grafted on. It would seem that Israel is very much still a nation, only that the citizens are comprised soley of believers in the King Messiah. In other words, the olive tree wasn't replaced, but it was pruned and purged. But the church and Israel are one and the same.

However, I wouldn't be too surprised were an earthly temple to be rebuilt. It would, of course, be a continual blaspheming against the King Messiah and I would not set one foot near it, let alone inside of it, unless the purpose was to bring it crashing to the ground.

[Daco]

First, how much “Jewish” heritage is required for a person to be a “Jew”? Jacob’s descendants lived in Egypt for 430 years, during which intermarriage with Egyptians was a virtual certainty, spreading “Jewish” genes throughout the Egyptian populace. Similarly, the ten Northern tribes were thoroughly dispersed, spreading their gene pool throughout what became the peoples of Europe and Central Asia. Are all Egyptians and Northern peoples “Jews” because they have an element of “Jewish” ancestry?

Abraham was the first Hebrew. The descendants of Jacob (later named Israel) became the children of Israel or Israelites. After the kingdom was divided, they were known as the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. "Jews" are technically only of the Southern Kingdom which included the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

As far as many posts here that do not recognize the re-establishment of Israel...have you forgotten much of what Paul wrote in Romans chapter 11? God will restore Israel. The Church is spiritual Israel, perhaps, and in the church there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female. But Paul also said not to boast against the natural branches for if He broke them off and graffed in the wild olive branch we should take heed that in our arrogance, He not break us off and graft back in the natural branches. And in verse 25 he wrote, "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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in." When the Church Age is completed, or the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, the blindness of Israel will be removed and they shall be restored again.

[runecrow]

"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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in." When the Church Age is completed, or the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, the blindness of Israel will be removed and they shall be restored again.

How do you determine (by scripture) when the "fulness of the Gentiles" has been (or will be) accomplished? I see you said, "When the church age is completed"- but how did you come to understand that phrase as equivalent to the other?

[Hitch]

.

As far as many posts here that do not recognize the re-establishment of Israel...have you forgotten much of what Paul wrote in Romans chapter 11? God will restore Israel.


There is not a word about national re-establishment in Romans 11, or anywhere else in Romans or the entire NT.

H

[Daco]

How do you determine (by scripture) when the "fulness of the Gentiles" has been (or will be) accomplished? I see you said, "When the church age is completed"- but how did you come to understand that phrase as equivalent to the other?

In Acts 15:14-18, "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Verses 16 and 17 are references to Amos 9:11-12, which James here indicates is speaking of a time in which the heathen or Gentiles will have the name of the Lord called over them. Since the apostles originally baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus, he sited this prophecy as having its fulfillment in the Church Age. While the Church endures in the earth, the times of the Gentiles, therefore continues. When Jesus returns to catch the Church away (1 Corinthians 15:50-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Luke 21:24) the times of the Gentiles will be completed (the fulness of the Gentiles) and God will graft the nation of Israel in again to the vine.

[Daco]

.

As far as many posts here that do not recognize the re-establishment of Israel...have you forgotten much of what Paul wrote in Romans chapter 11? God will restore Israel.


There is not a word about national re-establishment in Romans 11, or anywhere else in Romans or the entire NT.

H

What is Revelation chapter 7 talking about?

[Hitch]

What is Revelation chapter 7 talking about?What is Daco talking about?

As far as many posts here that do not recognize the re-establishment of Israel...have you forgotten much of what Paul wrote in Romans chapter 11? God will restore Israel. The Church is spiritual Israel, perhaps, and in the church there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female. But Paul also said not to boast against the natural branches for if He broke them off and graffed in the wild olive branch we should take heed that in our arrogance, He not break us off and graft back in the natural branches. And in verse 25 he wrote, "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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in." When the Church Age is completed, or the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, the blindness of Israel will be removed and they shall be restored again. Gee Daco it sure looks like you're telling us that Paul predicted this 're-establishment' specificlly in Romans 11.

Since even you couldnt find any support in Romans 11 you jumped to Rev 7...


Ok So there is nothing in R 7 speaking to the 're-establishment' of Israel.

Strike two.

[Hitch]

[QUOTE=Hitch]
Daco,,,Dave,, This is froma thread I started some time ago. Please answer if you care to.

Does your view of the Millennium include the resurrected saints living on earth during the 1,000 years?

Take care

Hitch

[Daco]

There is not a word about national re-establishment in Romans 11, or anywhere else in Romans or the entire NT.

I went to Revelation 7 because you said there was no place in the entire New Testament that mentions the re-establishment of national Israel. I was not abandonning Romans 11.

If Romans 11 is not speaking about the re-establishment of national Israel (along with other things, I realize), what is it talking about?

If Revelation 7 does not indicate a re-established national Israel, what is it talking about? You never answered that question. Please remember, the book of Revelation was written around 80 - 85 AD which was 10 - 15 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The dispersion of the Jews throughtout the world was beginning and they have not had a nation since then until 1948.

Also, perhaps we are not saying the same thing when we speak of the re-establishment of national Israel. What do you mean by that? How is it that you deny such a thing, when Israel has in fact been re-established since 1948, as a nation and Jerusalem has been returned to the Jews since 1967? Does history not show any evidence of a re-established national Israel either?

Strike two.

I'm not even swinging. You haven't put anything in the strike zone yet.

[Daco]

[QUOTE=Hitch]
Daco,,,Dave,, This is froma thread I started some time ago. Please answer if you care to.

Does your view of the Millennium include the resurrected saints living on earth during the 1,000 years?

Take care

Hitch

Okay, I'll bite...
Yes, my view of the Millennium does include the resurrected saints living on the earth during the 1,000 years. I'm prone to think you must have a differing view, so, please inform me.

[runecrow]

In Acts 15:14-18, "Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Verses 16 and 17 are references to Amos 9:11-12, which James here indicates is speaking of a time in which the heathen or Gentiles will have the name of the Lord called over them. Since the apostles originally baptized by immersion in the name of Jesus, he sited this prophecy as having its fulfillment in the Church Age. While the Church endures in the earth, the times of the Gentiles, therefore continues. When Jesus returns to catch the Church away (1 Corinthians 15:50-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Luke 21:24) the times of the Gentiles will be completed (the fulness of the Gentiles) and God will graft the nation of Israel in again to the vine.

I see what you're saying, but it seems to beg the question. What I mean is that "until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in" doesn't have any temporal quantifications placed upon it, so it's difficult to be certain as to when it is resolved (from scripture alone).

I agree that your interpretation is, indeed, a possible one. But, what if I propose that the "fulness of the Gentiles" refers, not to a state of finality, but to a state of present oppotunity. That is to say, Paul wrote of the gospel being preached in "all of the world" (Col 1:6;23). This being true, could the Romans verse not allude to the "fulness" of the Gentiles then upon the earth? That when all of the Gentile nations had had the gospel preached to them, and, in turn, many Gentiles entered into the kingdom- that then the blindess of Israel would be taken away?

In fact, there seem to me to be many possible alternative interpretations of this passage.

But what gives me pause is that, to interpret this passage in the way that you are doing, seems to me to run contrary to what is not difficult to understand in scripture- that being that God's dealing with Israel as an exclusive earthly nation was at an end.

Besides this passage, do you understand any other passage as teaching that God would consider earthly Israel as a nation exclusive of His attention? I see the Revelation passage being cited- but why would I not understand the sealed of the twelve tribes to refer to believing Christians? It states in the Romans passage that the 'wild' olive branches were graft on to the olive tree. That would mean that the Gentiles were graft into Israel. So, naturally, any imagery involving Israel would involve the believers in Christ who comprise the olive tree of Israel.

[Hitch]

[QUOTE=Hitch]

Okay, I'll bite...
Yes, my view of the Millennium does include the resurrected saints living on the earth during the 1,000 years. I'm prone to think you must have a differing view, so, please inform me.
Actually I had noticed how closely your view matches pre 1970 DF standard teaching. I'm surprized you deviate on this point.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

I went to Revelation 7 because you said there was no place in the entire New Testament that mentions the re-establishment of national Israel. I was not abandonning Romans 11.

If Romans 11 is not speaking about the re-establishment of national Israel (along with other things, I realize), what is it talking about?

If Revelation 7 does not indicate a re-established national Israel, what is it talking about? You never answered that question. Please remember, the book of Revelation was written around 80 - 85 AD which was 10 - 15 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The dispersion of the Jews throughtout the world was beginning and they have not had a nation since then until 1948.

Also, perhaps we are not saying the same thing when we speak of the re-establishment of national Israel. What do you mean by that? How is it that you deny such a thing, when Israel has in fact been re-established since 1948, as a nation and Jerusalem has been returned to the Jews since 1967? Does history not show any evidence of a re-established national Israel either?



I'm not even swinging. You haven't put anything in the strike zone yet.
So where in Rimans 11,, or anywhere in Romans is this national 're-establishment' of Israel?

You have made this asertion you are yet to even attempt a defense. Romans 11 was your primary choice of text now show me where Paul teaches this national 're-establishment' ,, and like I already said,,, feel free to expand your search to the entire book of Romans.

After that I lll go to the Apocalypse or anybook you choose.

Take care

H

[David Ben-Ariel]

Back in the 19th and early 20th century dispensationalists were calling for a re-establishment of a Jewish nation in Palestine to fulfill prophecy. More traditional Christians pooh-poohed the idea.

Guess what happened.

Exactly. Those of us who actually BELIEVE the Bible agree that the Jewish homeland (http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=53727) was prophesied, just as clearly as the Third Temple is prophesied to grace the Temple Mount in Jerusalem before Christ comes and cleanses it (since it's prophesied to get polluted by the unclean presence of Europe's wannabe divine emperor).

[eschaton]

Exactly. Those of us who actually BELIEVE the Bible agree that the Jewish homeland (http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=53727) was prophesied, just as clearly as the Third Temple is prophesied to grace the Temple Mount in Jerusalem before Christ comes and cleanses it (since it's prophesied to get polluted by the unclean presence of Europe's wannabe divine emperor).

Since you quoted me I'll make a reply. IMO, dispensational type of literalism is leading us right into the hands of the antichrist. The church is the true people of God.

[Hitch]

Exactly. Those of us who actually BELIEVE the Bible agree that the Jewish homeland (http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=53727) was prophesied, just as clearly as the Third Temple is prophesied to grace the Temple Mount in Jerusalem before Christ comes and cleanses it (since it's prophesied to get polluted by the unclean presence of Europe's wannabe divine emperor). LOL I can just see you in your Little Lord Fauntleroy outfit...

[Daco]

I see what you're saying, but it seems to beg the question. What I mean is that "until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in" doesn't have any temporal quantifications placed upon it, so it's difficult to be certain as to when it is resolved (from scripture alone).

I agree that your interpretation is, indeed, a possible one. But, what if I propose that the "fulness of the Gentiles" refers, not to a state of finality, but to a state of present oppotunity. That is to say, Paul wrote of the gospel being preached in "all of the world" (Col 1:6;23). This being true, could the Romans verse not allude to the "fulness" of the Gentiles then upon the earth? That when all of the Gentile nations had had the gospel preached to them, and, in turn, many Gentiles entered into the kingdom- that then the blindess of Israel would be taken away?

In fact, there seem to me to be many possible alternative interpretations of this passage.

But what gives me pause is that, to interpret this passage in the way that you are doing, seems to me to run contrary to what is not difficult to understand in scripture- that being that God's dealing with Israel as an exclusive earthly nation was at an end.

Besides this passage, do you understand any other passage as teaching that God would consider earthly Israel as a nation exclusive of His attention? I see the Revelation passage being cited- but why would I not understand the sealed of the twelve tribes to refer to believing Christians? It states in the Romans passage that the 'wild' olive branches were graft on to the olive tree. That would mean that the Gentiles were graft into Israel. So, naturally, any imagery involving Israel would involve the believers in Christ who comprise the olive tree of Israel.

If you want to take the view that this speaks of the gospel being preached into all the world, we should see Matthew chapter 24. "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Mt.24:14). Jesus says later in the chapter that there would be signs among the nations as to these times, i.e. The budding of the fig tree (the re-establishment of the nation of Israel): verses 32-33, " Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." In prophecy, the nation of Israel is often represented by the fig tree.

[Daco]

So where in Rimans 11,, or anywhere in Romans is this national 're-establishment' of Israel?

You have made this asertion you are yet to even attempt a defense. Romans 11 was your primary choice of text now show me where Paul teaches this national 're-establishment' ,, and like I already said,,, feel free to expand your search to the entire book of Romans.

After that I lll go to the Apocalypse or anybook you choose.

Take care

H

The preceeding verses explain that Israel as a nation had failed to attain to that which God had planned for them. By their unbelief, they rejected Jesus but God has not even cast them away. Only, blindness in part has happened unto them. With that turn of events, God has momentarily turned from them to the Gentiles, so that their stumbling from truth has turned out to be the riches of the Gentiles, how much greater shall be their re-establishment? This is pretty obvious to me from these verses.

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

The Church has been graft in and has become spiritual Israel, but we are still Gentiles by nature and not of Jewish or Abrahamic descent. God has not cast them away. He will re-establish them...has already established them in their land of heritage, and as a nation, and is yet to bring them to the point that they shall say, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the LORD." (speaking of Jesus).

Now, after you have blown this interpretation apart, don't forget to explain to me your interpretation of Revelation chapter 7, please.

[runecrow]

If you want to take the view that this speaks of the gospel being preached into all the world, we should see Matthew chapter 24. "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Mt.24:14). Jesus says later in the chapter that there would be signs among the nations as to these times, i.e. The budding of the fig tree (the re-establishment of the nation of Israel): verses 32-33, " Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." In prophecy, the nation of Israel is often represented by the fig tree.

I would have to say that the end did come exactly as predicted numerous times. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple occured on time in 70ad. So, what Jesus said would be seen was seen.

But, more to the point, is that it's not sound- to my notion- to build a doctrine around one verse which doesn't really say what the doctrine built around it says. Even if it's granted that the 'fulness of the Gentiles' means every Gentile of all of history until the end of time- the verse still doesn't say what happens to Israel after that fulness occurs. That is, the verse doesn't say that Israel would collectively repent and enter into the kingdom of God- it doesn't even say that one Israelite will. All that is really stated is that blindness has happened to Israel until... But "until" doesn't necessarily denote a change in anything. It can denote a change- but not necessarily.

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth until now." Paul did not mean that the creation quit groaning upon the publication of Romans.

So, my point is that, to my mind, it isn't sound to take a verse that is rather difficult, then build a doctrine around it.

[Hitch]

The preceeding verses explain that Israel as a nation had failed to attain to that which God had planned for them. By their unbelief, they rejected Jesus but God has not even cast them away. Only, blindness in part has happened unto them. With that turn of events, God has momentarily turned from them to the Gentiles, so that their stumbling from truth has turned out to be the riches of the Gentiles, how much greater shall be their re-establishment? This is pretty obvious to me from these verses.

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

V 11 specifies their fall not their re-estsablishment
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

V 14 has a desperate tone, speaking of saving 'some of them' and completely laces any mention of national resurgence

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Jesus said believeing in Him is life FROM death. Again there is nothing here wrt national resurgence


The Church has been graft in and has become spiritual Israel, but we are still Gentiles by nature and not of Jewish or Abrahamic descent. God has not cast them away. He will re-establish them...has already established them in their land of heritage, and as a nation, and is yet to bring them to the point that they shall say, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the LORD." (speaking of Jesus).

Now, after you have blown this interpretation apart, don't forget to explain to me your interpretation of Revelation chapter 7, please.So which of the verses you poisted says anything about this -re-establishment' Specificly on a national scale? The only place there is anything about this 're-establishment' I can see is located in your comments not in the passages.

You need to discover a passage or two which supports your contentions. For example you posted;

The Church has been graft in and has become spiritual Israel, but we are still Gentiles by nature and not of Jewish or Abrahamic descent.


This is directly contrary to Apostolic teaching, specificly;

Romans 9;8

Gal 3;29

Gal 3;7

To list but a few.

Now, after you have blown this interpretation apart, don't forget to explain to me your interpretation of Revelation chapter 7, pleaseSure, as I said, after you deal with the passages you selected from Romans etc.


Good hunting

H

[Daco]

Quote: Originally posted by Daco

The preceeding verses explain that Israel as a nation had failed to attain to that which God had planned for them. By their unbelief, they rejected Jesus but God has not even cast them away. Only, blindness in part has happened unto them. With that turn of events, God has momentarily turned from them to the Gentiles, so that their stumbling from truth has turned out to be the riches of the Gentiles, how much greater shall be their re-establishment? This is pretty obvious to me from these verses.

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

V 11 specifies their fall not their re-estsablishment
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

V 14 has a desperate tone, speaking of saving 'some of them' and completely laces any mention of national resurgence

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

Jesus said believeing in Him is life FROM death. Again there is nothing here wrt national resurgence


The Church has been graft in and has become spiritual Israel, but we are still Gentiles by nature and not of Jewish or Abrahamic descent. God has not cast them away. He will re-establish them...has already established them in their land of heritage, and as a nation, and is yet to bring them to the point that they shall say, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the LORD." (speaking of Jesus).

Now, after you have blown this interpretation apart, don't forget to explain to me your interpretation of Revelation chapter 7, please.
So which of the verses you poisted says anything about this -re-establishment' Specificly on a national scale? The only place there is anything about this 're-establishment' I can see is located in your comments not in the passages.

You need to discover a passage or two which supports your contentions. For example you posted;

The Church has been graft in and has become spiritual Israel, but we are still Gentiles by nature and not of Jewish or Abrahamic descent.


This is directly contrary to Apostolic teaching, specificly;

Romans 9;8

Gal 3;29

Gal 3;7

To list but a few.

Now, after you have blown this interpretation apart, don't forget to explain to me your interpretation of Revelation chapter 7, pleaseSure, as I said, after you deal with the passages you selected from Romans etc.


Good hunting

H

Romans 11:1-15, 19-24, 28-29
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Paul explains that God has not cast His people (Israel) away. He demonstrates that he is talking about national Israel by listing his own pedigree...seed of Abraham of the tribe of Benjamin. This is not his spiritual disposition is spiritual Israel. It is his genetic, physical, DNA-verifiable descent from the lineage of Abraham through the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
Paul reaffirms that God has not cast away His people which He foreknew and makes reference to Old Testament scriptures in I Kings concerning Elijah's complaint to God that he was the only one serving God. God replied to him that He had a remnant (of fairly large number) that were faithfully serving Him besides Elijah. This remnant of faithful, Paul refers to in the next verse.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Paul is speaking of the present Church Age the minority of Jews who have believed that Jesus was Messiah and have obeyed faith and been born into the Church. He calls them the elect. The majority of Israel, however, rejected Jesus as Christ and therefore, blindness in part happened unto them. Verse 6 is just dealing with the details of the current issue of justification by works of the Law or by grace through faith.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
In verses 7-10 Paul restates that Israel as a nation has not obtained but the remnant or elect group has. The rest of the nation as a whole was blinded. Paul is speaking on a national scale from the beginning of the chapter. The only exception to that is the remnant or elect Jews who by faith were not blinded but embraced and obeyed Christianity.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
You say, "V 11 specifies their fall not their re-estsablishment" but notice that Paul indicates that God intends to use their fall to provoke them to jealousy. While it is not specifically stated, consider that this intention is pointless unless the further intent also exists to re-establish them, given the proper reaction.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
Now Paul contrasts what the fall of Israel has provided for the Gentiles (an opportunity to partake in the blessing of Abraham. The fact that the blessing of Abraham would be offered to circumcision and uncircumcision alike is previously spoken to in Romans 4:9-16.), against what greater riches their re-establishment will provide to the world, i.e. "their fulness."
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
You say, " V 14 has a desperate tone, speaking of saving 'some of them' and completely laces any mention of national resurgence." Indeed, Paul's tone of desperation comes, I think, from his burden for lost souls in general and certainly for his own countrymen. When he speaks of saving some of them, he is speaking of salvation in the Church i.e. that they might be included in the number of the elect who have obtained that for which they seek (v.7). I do not, however, see him dismissing the notion that there should ever be a re-established nation of Israel.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Here, you say, " Jesus said believeing in Him is life FROM death. Again there is nothing here wrt national resurgence." I am in absolute agreement that in Him is life from death. I'm not sure I understand how this applies. If the casting away of [national Israel] them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them [national Israel?] be, but [believing in Jesus?] life from the dead? The first half of the sentence is talking about an event happening to the nation of Israel and its impact on the Gentile world. The second half of the sentence awkwardly shifts to 1) what can happen to Israel if they believe in Jesus (?) or 2) an abstract reference to "receiving them" whatever that is supposed to mean and its impact on the Gentile world, which has already happened in their fall. I don't see the application of this to the subject. How do you reconcile shifting conveniently here to the topic of "believing in Jesus as being life from death" when Paul made no such shift. He's still talking about the nation of Israel as God's people, being cast away or not. The scale is still national and the issue is consistant with the question at the beginning of the chapter: the fall and re-establishment of Israel.

For the sake of time and space I jump to verses 19-24:
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Here Paul is talking about the Gentiles being graft in because by faith and the natural branches (national Israel) being broken off because of unbelief. The admonition is clear, if God did not spare the natural branches, we should take care lest we become lifted up in pride and speaking against them should also find ourselves at risk of being broken off as well. In verse 23 it states that if they (national Israel) abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in again. Verse 24, emphasizes how much more shall the natural branches be graffed back into their own tree than we who were wild by nature be graffed into it. The very fact that Gentiles are in the Church at all, indicates that God will re-establish national Israel.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
As far as the gospel is concerned, Paul says, the Jews are your enemies. They oppose the Christian doctrine. Yet, because of their position as God's people (national Israel) they are beloved (for the father's sakes or because of their natural lineage). God called Israel and the gifts and callings of God are without repentance. He has not changed His mind.

You have said:
You need to discover a passage or two which supports your contentions. For example you posted;

The Church has been graft in and has become spiritual Israel, but we are still Gentiles by nature and not of Jewish or Abrahamic descent.
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly in the above statement. I mean, through Christ, Gentiles have been made partakers of the covenant and the seed of Abraham. Yet, genetically, we remain Gentiles. That is, our DNA is not now miraculously Jewish.

This is directly contrary to Apostolic teaching, specificly;

Romans 9;8
This simply means that being a natural descendant of Abraham was not sufficient to inherit the blessing of Abraham. Jesus told Nicodemus "You must be born again of the water and of the Spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This is how Gentiles become Jews inwardly (Romans 2:28-29) In fact, this is how the elect Jews became Jews inwardly, such as Paul, Peter, James, John, and so on. I don't see any direct contradiction to Apostolic teaching here. If you are suggesting that the apostles taught that Gentiles somehow transform genetically into Jews when they convert to Christianity, I don't buy that.
Gal 3;29

Gal 3;7
I absolutely agree with both of these verses and I hope the above attempt to clarify what I said makes more sense to you.

1. You still have not clarified for me that we are speaking of the same thing when we speak of the re-establisment of Israel. What do you mean by the re-establishment of Israel?
2. You have not spoken to how you ignore that Israel is in fact a nation since 1948. Does this bear no significance?
3. You have not explained to me what Romans chapter 11 is talking about in your mind.
4. You have held out on speaking about what Revelation chapter 7 indicates.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

[David Ben-Ariel]

Doesn't the New Testament say that their house was left to them desolate

Yes, some 40 years after Yashua's warning. Being left desolate meant that it was "My Father's House" and that He left it just before it was destroyed as prophesied. That was that generation. This is a new generation that will come to perceive that Yashua is the Mashiach (not the traditional pagan Gentile version though), moved by the Holy Spirit and testimony of the Two Witnesses.

the only real reason I would support the rebuilding of a sacrificial Temple is to get all the PeTA nuts out of here and move them over there.

So just because you fail to understand God's good reasons for seeing to it that the Temple of God will be built and the sacrificial system restored, exactly as prophesied by Daniel and Paul and Ezekiel clearly sees it even during the Reign of our Righteous King Messiah, you oppose it although it's very clear in Scripture? Perhaps it will serve as a memorial and not just a foreshadowing, in living color the significance of the Passover Lamb of God and the seriousness of sin and need to address it as a nation, not just as individuals.

[Hitch]

Yes, some 40 years after Yashua's warning. Being left desolate meant that it was "My Father's House" and that He left it just before it was destroyed as prophesied. That was that generation. This is a new generation that will come to perceive that Yashua is the Mashiach (not the traditional pagan Gentile version though), moved by the Holy Spirit and testimony of the Two Witnesses.



So just because you fail to understand God's good reasons for seeing to it that the Temple of God will be built and the sacrificial system restored, exactly as prophesied by Daniel and Paul and Ezekiel clearly sees it even during the Reign of our Righteous King Messiah, you oppose it although it's very clear in Scripture? Perhaps it will serve as a memorial and not just a foreshadowing, in living color the significance of the Passover Lamb of God and the seriousness of sin and need to address it as a nation, not just as individuals.
So just because you fail to understand God's good reasons for seeing to it that the Temple of God will be built and the sacrificial system restored, exactly as prophesied by Daniel and Paul and Ezekiel clearly sees it even during the Reign of our Righteous King Messiah, you oppose it although it's very clear in Scripture? Perhaps it will serve as a memorial and not just a foreshadowing, in living color the significance of the Passover Lamb of God and the seriousness of sin and need to address it as a nation, not just as individuals.


Is BenAriel yiddish for clown? Sionce you citeds Ezzy as a 'clear' portion os Scripture supporting a yet future temple hows about you explain his calling for 'sin offerings' and your calling for some memorial?

Where goes your literalism Dave?

H

[Daco]

Yes, some 40 years after Yashua's warning. Being left desolate meant that it was "My Father's House" and that He left it just before it was destroyed as prophesied. That was that generation. This is a new generation that will come to perceive that Yashua is the Mashiach (not the traditional pagan Gentile version though), moved by the Holy Spirit and testimony of the Two Witnesses.



So just because you fail to understand God's good reasons for seeing to it that the Temple of God will be built and the sacrificial system restored, exactly as prophesied by Daniel and Paul and Ezekiel clearly sees it even during the Reign of our Righteous King Messiah, you oppose it although it's very clear in Scripture? Perhaps it will serve as a memorial and not just a foreshadowing, in living color the significance of the Passover Lamb of God and the seriousness of sin and need to address it as a nation, not just as individuals.

I would like to clarify, that while I do believe in what I call a re-establishment of national Israel and the rebuilding of a Temple in Jerusalem along with the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, etc., I do not believe God will honor or recognize it as the accepted way to God. Truly, Jesus fulfilled what the Temple and the animal sacrifices typified. Isaiah 66:1-3, "Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? 2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.

The New Temple will be built near the Dome of the Rock Mosque and not on the actual Temple site as the previous ones have been. Thus, the question Where is the house that ye build me? Because Jesus is the true sacrifice sufficient for sin, the objection to animal sacrifice in verse 3 is applied.

[Hitch]

[QUOTE=Daco]I would like to clarify, that while I do believe in what I call a re-establishment of national Israel and the rebuilding of a Temple in Jerusalem along with the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, etc., I do not believe God will honor or recognize it as the accepted way to God. Truly, Jesus fulfilled what the Temple and the animal sacrifices typified. Isaiah 66:1-3, "Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? 2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.


Well Daco the same question then applies to you. If you're going to cite Ezzy's prophecy wrt a yet future temple then you need to explain why he calls for 'sin offerings' especially in light of I do not believe God will honor or recognize it as the accepted way to God. Has the Prophet intended to mislead calling for worthless sacrifices?

Take care

H

[Daco]

[QUOTE=Daco]I would like to clarify, that while I do believe in what I call a re-establishment of national Israel and the rebuilding of a Temple in Jerusalem along with the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, etc., I do not believe God will honor or recognize it as the accepted way to God. Truly, Jesus fulfilled what the Temple and the animal sacrifices typified. Isaiah 66:1-3, "Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? 2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.


Well Daco the same question then applies to you. If you're going to cite Ezzy's prophecy wrt a yet future temple then you need to explain why he calls for 'sin offerings' especially in light of I do not believe God will honor or recognize it as the accepted way to God. Has the Prophet intended to mislead calling for worthless sacrifices?

Take care

H

I cited Isaiah (Esaias, perhaps). Who is Ezzy? I don't see Isaiah calling for "sin offerings" or any offerings for that matter. He said if someone brought an ox it would be as though he had slain a man, a lamb would be as though he had cut off a dog's neck, or an oblation as though he offered swine's blood, or the burning of incense as though he blessed an idol.

It is my understanding that the prophets did not necessarily understand what they were declaring, they simply proclaimed what the Spirit of God inspired them to say. While I believe his intentions are pure, the intentions of the prophet have no bearing on the prophecy.

I'm starting to see why we don't see the scriptures in the same light.

[Hitch]

[QUOTE=Hitch][B]

I cited Isaiah (Esaias, perhaps). Who is Ezzy? I don't see Isaiah calling for "sin offerings" or any offerings for that matter. He said if someone brought an ox it would be as though he had slain a man, a lamb would be as though he had cut off a dog's neck, or an oblation as though he offered swine's blood, or the burning of incense as though he blessed an idol.

It is my understanding that the prophets did not necessarily understand what they were declaring, they simply proclaimed what the Spirit of God inspired them to say. While I believe his intentions are pure, the intentions of the prophet have no bearing on the prophecy.

I'm starting to see why we don't see the scriptures in the same light.Nice try Daco. Ezzy calls for the rebuilding of the temple and for 'sin offerings' to be sacrfificed there. You call for memorial offerings. What Prophet do you cite wrt memorial offerings?

[betzerg]

[QUOTE=Daco]Nice try Daco. Ezzy calls for the rebuilding of the temple and for 'sin offerings' to be sacrfificed there. You call for memorial offerings. What Prophet do you cite wrt memorial offerings?


It seems fairly evident to me that the temple will be rebuilt and that it will be the site of the return of Messiah and the establishing of G-d's Kingly rule on the earth. If you look at Ezekiel 42, 43, 44...etc. and then again at Revelation 11...we see that the temple is in existence at the Messianic rule.
In fact, the twelve tribes of Israel are an important part of it's construction.

As for the sacrificial system. Christians fail to realize that there was NO sacrifices for intential willful transgressions of the laws of G-d in judaism. The only way to "atone" for these willful transgressions was prayer and repentence. The sacrificial system was a way of life....without the temple, this is an impossiblity.

If you think that the blood of animals was used to "erase" the sins of murder, adultery, sabbath breaking...look again.

So what was the sacrifice that Yeshua made. What was the purpose of his death? I think when you come to understand this....you will understand that the sacrificial system has more to do with community than it does with "salvation". For this reason it would not violate any "substitutionary atonement" that was done for us by Yeshua...it would only inhance it.

Shalom,

BETZER

Shalom,

[Daco]

[QUOTE=Daco]Nice try Daco. Ezzy calls for the rebuilding of the temple and for 'sin offerings' to be sacrfificed there. You call for memorial offerings. What Prophet do you cite wrt memorial offerings?

Hitch, I'm sorry but I am withdrawing from this discussion. You have failed to acknowledge four questions I asked you earlier from post #48:

1. You still have not clarified for me that we are speaking of the same thing when we speak of the re-establisment of Israel. What do you mean by the re-establishment of Israel?
2. You have not spoken to how you ignore that Israel is in fact a nation since 1948. Does this bear no significance?
3. You have not explained to me what Romans chapter 11 is talking about in your mind.
4. You have held out on speaking about what Revelation chapter 7 indicates.

Now, you have again ignored my request to clarify who you mean by Ezzy. If you're talking about Ezekiel, I did not cite him. If you're talking about Isaiah, he does not call for animal sacrifices in chapter 66, which I cited. And finally, you now claim somehow that I am calling for memorial offerings. Where in the world do you get that? I suppose you won't answer that either.

So, until I read something here that I simply cannot resist responding to, I am finished with this discussion with you. I have enjoyed the exchange to a degree but truly, I am losing my sense of connection with you.

[Hitch]

[QUOTE=Hitch]

Hitch, I'm sorry but I am withdrawing from this discussion. You have failed to acknowledge four questions I asked you earlier from post #48:

1. You still have not clarified for me that we are speaking of the same thing when we speak of the re-establisment of Israel. What do you mean by the re-establishment of Israel?
2. You have not spoken to how you ignore that Israel is in fact a nation since 1948. Does this bear no significance?
3. You have not explained to me what Romans chapter 11 is talking about in your mind.
4. You have held out on speaking about what Revelation chapter 7 indicates.

Now, you have again ignored my request to clarify who you mean by Ezzy. If you're talking about Ezekiel, I did not cite him. If you're talking about Isaiah, he does not call for animal sacrifices in chapter 66, which I cited. And finally, you now claim somehow that I am calling for memorial offerings. Where in the world do you get that? I suppose you won't answer that either.

So, until I read something here that I simply cannot resist responding to, I am finished with this discussion with you. I have enjoyed the exchange to a degree but truly, I am losing my sense of connection with you.
I would like to clarify, that while I do believe in what I call a re-establishment of national Israel and the rebuilding of a Temple in Jerusalem along with the reinstitution of animal sacrifice, etc., I do not believe God will honor or recognize it as the accepted way to God.

What then is the purpose of these sacrfices and the Temple in which they are offered?






Now, you have again ignored my request to clarify who you mean by Ezzy. If you're talking about Ezekiel, I did not cite him. If you're talking about Isaiah, he does not call for animal sacrifices in chapter 66, which I cited. And finally, you now claim somehow that I am calling for memorial offerings. Where in the world do you get that? I suppose you won't answer that either.

Do you thin the Temple Ezzy speaks of is a yet a distinct and different Temple that the one you spoke of?


Take care

H