A Question For Dispensationalists

[Arial]

In other words, the land promises of Israel were only a "type" of the real inheritance of God's people (those in Christ).

Right. The land "type" is all the land in the New Covenant--the whole earth. We see this in the final result of restored creation (Is 11; Rev 21) and a new creature in Christ, arriving at its fullness. (1 Cor 15.) The first "land" was the Garden of Eden where God dwelt with man.

Gal 3(16) Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.

Which is why in 1 Kings 11:9-13 he tells Solomon this: And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, "Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen."

And what was that tribe? You guessed it. Judah. It is about the Seed. "The seed of the woman will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel."

Israel is the servant of the new covenant. The Seed is the subject and focus.

 

[Arial]

According to the bible during the 1000 year reign there will be other nations besides Israel.

Please stop talking about the 1000 year reign. In order to verify that there is such a thing the subject will be lost and not addressed. It is mentioned in the OP only in relation to the question asked. And that has not been answered.

 

[CrowCross]

Please stop talking about the 1000 year reign. In order to verify that there is such a thing the subject will be lost and not addressed. It is mentioned in the OP only in relation to the question asked. And that has not been answered.

With all due respect...your post started off with...and I quote....This thread concerns only one aspect of dispensationalism, and that is the teaching that the thousand years in Revelation is a literal thousand years. And that during that thousand years, Jesus is reigning in Jerusalem.

Did it not?

During the thread I replied back with....According to the bible during the 1000 year reign there will be other nations besides Israel.

The mentions of nation's during the 1,000 year reign....why do you have a problem with that?

3 And he threw him into the Abyss, shut it, and sealed it over him, so that he could not deceive the nations until the thousand years were complete. After that, he must be released for a brief period of time.

 

[Tambora]

According to the bible during the 1000 year reign there will be other nations besides Israel.

According to the Bible God's people are of all nations.

That's why NT writers make it clear that what the prophets said about literal Israel was typology of Christ and His body.

When Israel (a son) was called out of Egypt, it was just a typology of God's real Son, Christ and His body.
The promises to Abraham's seed (descendants) was just a typology of the real seed of Abraham - Christ and His body.
etc.
etc.
etc.

 

[Arial]

With all due respect...your post started off with...and I quote....This thread concerns only one aspect of dispensationalism, and that is the teaching that the thousand years in Revelation is a literal thousand years. And that during that thousand years, Jesus is reigning in Jerusalem.

Did it not?

Yes it did. I said so in the post you are responding to. That does not mean I intend the thread to be about a thousand year reign. It is about the presupposition that the thousand years with Christ as an earthly king exists in dispensationalism to fulfill the promise of Israel inheriting all the land allotted to them that the lost. Now, with that in mind, how do you fit the verses from 1 Kings into that?

The land promise was conditional. The fact that the word "forever" is sometimes used does not negate the conditions. If it did , the conditions would be meaningless. The way you are looking at it, God breaks one promise in order to keep another promise. In either case it would make God a liar. So a person can ignore it if they want and just stick with what they choose to stick with. Or, since we know God cannot lie, we can try and figure out why neither promise is a lie, and both are fulfilled.

If a person cannot do that, there is something wrong somewhere along the line. And if they can, then they have their interpretations right. I would start with what we know. God does not have two categories of those who are his people. And I would look at the beginning, Gen 1-3 and see what the problem that needs to be resolved for creation and humanity is and that beginning promise made. "The seed of the woman will crush your head and you will bruise his heel." and then jump to the end where we see the resolution. Or go to the middle where a king is born in a manger and then to the full resolution.

Don't follow the land or an ethnicity----follow the Seed.

 

[Arial]

The mentions of nation's during the 1,000 year reign....why do you have a problem with that?

3 And he threw him into the Abyss, shut it, and sealed it over him, so that he could not deceive the nations until the thousand years were complete. After that, he must be released for a brief period of time.

The problem is it is a different subject, the opening of a different tangent. The OP has nothing to do with other nations.

 

[CrowCross]

I've lost interest in this thread.

 

[Arial]

I've lost interest in this thread.

I can see why. You don't want to deal with the OP or the question asked. You just want to promulgate your own beliefs without having to substantiate them or deal with their own Bible contradictions and meandering off the path of even logic.

 

[CrowCross]

I can see why. You don't want to deal with the OP or the question asked. You just want to promulgate your own beliefs without having to substantiate them or deal with their own Bible contradictions and meandering off the path of even logic.

Whatever.

You were given an answer through Got Questons....and apparently don't like those folk.

But, as I said...I've lost interest in this thread. You've provided nothing to spark that interest.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

This thread concerns only one aspect of dispensationalism, and that is the teaching that the thousand years in Revelation is a literal thousand years. And that during that thousand years, Jesus is reigning in Jerusalem; that it is a time when the church has been removed and God is dealing with geo/politcal Israel, fulfilling all the promises made to Israel in the OT, including possession of the land and a complete restoration of national Israel.

The question is: How do you deal with these passages concerning the land?

You try to make this topic a mill stone that somehow invalidates God's promises through the centuries. You show a very rudimentary understanding of Scripture and of history. Here, let me show you the answer to your supposed problem.

You focus in on Solomon and assume that his failings somehow invalidated God's promises. But notice that God said (in verse 6) "you or your children". So it was also Solomon's descendants that were in view here. God did not take away the land from Israel after Solomon's death. So your primary assumption fails right at that point. But God did remove the 10 tribes from their land. And then also removed the remaining population from Judah after that. At that point, that is when the judgement of God fell on the Jewish people.

This is very plain in Jeremiah:

[Jer 25:4-11 LSB] 4 "And Yahweh has sent to you all His slaves the prophets, rising up early and sending, but you have not listened nor inclined your ear to hear, 5 saying, 'Turn now everyone from his evil way and from the evil of your deeds, and live on the ground which Yahweh has given to you and your fathers forever and ever; 6 and do not walk after other gods to serve them and to worship them, and do not provoke Me to anger with the work of your hands, and I will bring no evil against you.' 7 "Yet you have not listened to Me," declares Yahweh, "in order that you might provoke Me to anger with the work of your hands to your own evil [demise]. 8 "Therefore thus says Yahweh of hosts, 'Because you have not listened to My words, 9 behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,' declares Yahweh, 'and [I will send] to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of horror and of hissing and an everlasting waste place. 10 'Moreover, I will make the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp, to perish from them. 11 'This whole land will be a waste place and an object of horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

God fulfilled His warning to Solomon and his descendants. He removed them from the land. But it was for only a specific period of time. Not forever.

Jeremiah lays all of this out.

[Jer 32:21-23, 30-32, 36-38, 43-44 LSB] 21 'You brought Your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and with wonders, and with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with great terror 22 and gave them this land, which You swore to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey. 23 'They came in and took possession of it, but they did not listen to Your voice and did not walk in Your law. They have not done anything that You commanded them to do; therefore You have made all this [harmful] evil come upon them. ... 30 "Indeed the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah have been doing only evil in My sight from their youth; for the sons of Israel have been only provoking Me to anger by the work of their hands," declares Yahweh. 31 "Indeed this city has been to Me [a] [provocation of] My anger and My wrath from the day that they built it, even to this day, so that it should be removed from before My face 32 because of all the evil of the sons of Israel and the sons of Judah which they have done to provoke Me to anger--they, their kings, their princes, their priests, their prophets, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. ... 36 "So now, therefore thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you are saying, 'It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence.' 37 "Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have banished them in My anger, in My wrath, and in great indignation; and I will cause them to return to this place and make them inhabit [it] in safety. 38 "And they shall be My people, and I will be their God; ... 43 'Thus fields will be bought in this land of which you [all] are saying, "It is a desolation, without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans." 44 'Men will buy fields for money, sign and seal deeds, and call in witnesses in the land of Benjamin, in the surroundings of Jerusalem, in the cities of Judah, in the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the Shephelah, and in the cities of the Negev; for I will return their fortunes,' declares Yahweh."

But it was not just for that time period. God, in HIs prophecies extends the time period out to the Last Days. It is during this time that ultimately everyone will understand the full purpose of God and His plans for His nation of Israel.

[Jer 30:18-19, 21-24 LSB] 18 "Thus says Yahweh, 'Behold, I will return the fortunes of the tents of Jacob And have compassion on his dwelling places; And the city will be rebuilt on its ruin, And the palace will sit on its just place. 19 'From them will come forth thanksgiving And the voice of those who celebrate; And I will multiply them, and they will not decrease; I will also honor them, and they will not be insignificant. ... 21 'And their mighty one shall be one of them, And their ruler shall come forth from their midst; And I will bring Him near, and He shall approach Me; For who would [dare] to give his heart as security to approach Me?' declares Yahweh. 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'" 23 Behold, the storm of Yahweh! Wrath has gone forth, A sweeping storm; It will burst on the head of the wicked. 24 The burning anger of Yahweh will not turn back Until He has done and until He has established The intent of His heart; In the last days you will understand this.

Zechariah contains the ultimate fulfillment of the promised Land and the Ruler who will take the throne. Notice the "Me" who is talking. It's not God the Father. The final 1000 years, the Day of Yahweh is this time period. A period which starts less than a decade from now.

[Zec 2:8-13 LSB] 8 For thus says Yahweh of hosts, "After glory He has sent Me against the nations which have taken you as spoil, for he who touches you, touches the apple of His eye. 9 "For behold, I will wave My hand over them so that they will be spoil for their slaves. Then you will know that Yahweh of hosts has sent Me. 10 "Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst," declares Yahweh. 11 "And many nations will join themselves to Yahweh in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that Yahweh of hosts has sent Me to you. 12 "Then Yahweh will inherit Judah as His portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 "Be silent, all flesh, before Yahweh; for He is aroused from His holy habitation."

 

[Arial]

You try to make this topic a mill stone that somehow invalidates God's promises through the centuries.

I am not trying to make it anything. I quoted the scriptures and asked a legitimate question of dispensationalists?

You show a very rudimentary understanding of Scripture and of history.

This is known as an ad hominem fallacy that begins the debate with a personal attack---in this case on the persons intellect as being inferior to their own. I have found it a very common approach when someone can't actually give a straight forward or legitimate, direct response. Within the ad hominem in this case is another fallacy that suggests the person knows the intellectual level of the poster's understanding of Scripture and history. Neither of which actually applies to the scriptures given or the question asked. So whatever follows is already undermined itself, and is likely to be more of the same, and never actually answers the question. We'll see.

Here, let me show you the answer to your supposed problem.

You focus in on Solomon and assume that his failings somehow invalidated God's promises. But notice that God said (in verse 6) "you or your children". So it was also Solomon's descendants that were in view here. God did not take away the land from Israel after Solomon's death. So your primary assumption fails right at that point. But God did remove the 10 tribes from their land. And then also removed the remaining population from Judah after that. At that point, that is when the judgement of God fell on the Jewish people.

Well there is a bit more of the same in the first sentence. It negates the OP by calling it a "supposed" problem and suggests I have a problem, which I don't. I simply asked a question of dispensationalists given what was in the scriptures I quoted. It is the Dispensationalist that has the problem---the question to be answered.

It was not just Solomon's failings. I could have quoted a great deal of the OT going back to the exodus all the way through the Judges, on into Saul; and as to kings that reigned from Solomon onward in both Judah and Israel. But this is a forum. And even though I only quoted two sections of 1 Kings to simplify the matter for dispensationalists, unbeknownst to you, I had the entire book on my mind. I know that what happened that caused Israel to lose the land did not all fall at Solomon's feet. And since I quoted direct scriptures to make my foundation for the question asked, it is fallacious to assume that means my entire focus on the issue is on Solomon.

And God did divide the kingdom, taking all but one tribe out of the hands of Solomon's son, and later scattering the entire northern kingdom by their being conquered by Assyria. They never returned. (1 Kings 9:1-9). And in due time he did the same to Judah and only a remnant of them returned and that for the sake of Christ.

1 Kings 11:9-13 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, "Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my convenient and my statues that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chose.

In the rest of chapter 11 we see God set the stage for this, and the account of Solomon's death. From chapter 12 onward through the rest of 1 Kings and 2 Kings we see it play out in history. Just as you yourself have indicated. But God did not leave Judah and later allow a remnant to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls and temple for the sake of the land and Israel's possession of it----they had already thoroughly violated the "quid pro quo" land aspect of the Sinai covenant. It was for the sake of Christ who would come from the loins of David so to speak---as promised. They never had another earthly king, again came under the government of the Roman empire, spent over 400 years without so much as a word from God until Christ was born and John the Baptist began his mission of one crying in the wilderness.

This is very plain in Jeremiah:

God fulfilled His warning to Solomon and his descendants. He removed them from the land. But it was for only a specific period of time. Not forever.

Jeremiah lays all of this out.


But it was not just for that time period. God, in HIs prophecies extends the time period out to the Last Days. It is during this time that ultimately everyone will understand the full purpose of God and His plans for His nation of Israel.


Zechariah contains the ultimate fulfillment of the promised Land and the Ruler who will take the throne. Notice the "Me" who is talking. It's not God the Father. The final 1000 years, the Day of Yahweh is this time period. A period which starts less than a decade from now.

See how very difficult you make it to respond when you put the scriptures in a quote box? They will not quote in my response.

So I will say regarding them. You presuppose what the "last days" of Jer 30 are; you read a presupposition of a thousand years onto Zech, and then in unimaginable presumption declare the actual decade when it will start.

Doing this does not answer the question I asked. All it does is pit one promise against another. God promised they could keep the land on certain conditions. They violated those conditions. But since dispensationalists have their beliefs set in stone, they in effect say he only has to keep the good promise and ignore the bad promise. It is a matter of ignoring the purpose of and type of the Sinai covenant. They have the land completely overriding the Seed, which is the redemptive purpose of the nation for all the land of creation and its inhabitants. The land does not disappear, and Jews do not disappear, and they are not excluded from redemption in Christ. And if God continues to have a special love for Jerusalem, it is not about the city or the land. It is part and parcel of his love for the Son. It is never about land----it is always about Christ.

But I know, you will still think you adequately answered the question. There is no way to make a person see what they do not want to see.

I would go so far to say that it is the very reason that God made the possession of the land a conditional covenant. Because it is not about the land but about Christ. First page to last page.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I am not trying to make it anything. I quoted the scriptures and asked a legitimate question of dispensationalists?

This is known as an ad hominem fallacy that begins the debate with a personal attack---in this case on the persons intellect as being inferior to their own. I have found it a very common approach when someone can't actually give a straight forward or legitimate, direct response. Within the ad hominem in this case is another fallacy that suggests the person knows the intellectual level of the poster's understanding of Scripture and history. Neither of which actually applies to the scriptures given or the question asked. So whatever follows is already undermined itself, and is likely to be more of the same, and never actually answers the question. We'll see.

Well there is a bit more of the same in the first sentence. It negates the OP by calling it a "supposed" problem and suggests I have a problem, which I don't. I simply asked a question of dispensationalists given what was in the scriptures I quoted. It is the Dispensationalist that has the problem---the question to be answered.

It was not just Solomon's failings. I could have quoted a great deal of the OT going back to the exodus all the way through the Judges, on into Saul; and as to kings that reigned from Solomon onward in both Judah and Israel. But this is a forum. And even though I only quoted two sections of 1 Kings to simplify the matter for dispensationalists, unbeknownst to you, I had the entire book on my mind. I know that what happened that caused Israel to lose the land did not all fall at Solomon's feet. And since I quoted direct scriptures to make my foundation for the question asked, it is fallacious to assume that means my entire focus on the issue is on Solomon.

And God did divide the kingdom, taking all but one tribe out of the hands of Solomon's son, and later scattering the entire northern kingdom by their being conquered by Assyria. They never returned. (1 Kings 9:1-9). And in due time he did the same to Judah and only a remnant of them returned and that for the sake of Christ.

1 Kings 11:9-13 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, "Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my convenient and my statues that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chose.

In the rest of chapter 11 we see God set the stage for this, and the account of Solomon's death. From chapter 12 onward through the rest of 1 Kings and 2 Kings we see it play out in history. Just as you yourself have indicated. But God did not leave Judah and later allow a remnant to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls and temple for the sake of the land and Israel's possession of it----they had already thoroughly violated the "quid pro quo" land aspect of the Sinai covenant. It was for the sake of Christ who would come from the loins of David so to speak---as promised. They never had another earthly king, again came under the government of the Roman empire, spent over 400 years without so much as a word from God until Christ was born and John the Baptist began his mission of one crying in the wilderness.

See how very difficult you make it to respond when you put the scriptures in a quote box? They will not quote in my response.

So I will say regarding them. You presuppose what the "last days" of Jer 30 are; you read a presupposition of a thousand years onto Zech, and then in unimaginable presumption declare the actual decade when it will start.

Doing this does not answer the question I asked. All it does is pit one promise against another. God promised they could keep the land on certain conditions. They violated those conditions. But since dispensationalists have their beliefs set in stone, they in effect say he only has to keep the good promise and ignore the bad promise. It is a matter of ignoring the purpose of and type of the Sinai covenant. They have the land completely overriding the Seed, which is the redemptive purpose of the nation for all the land of creation and its inhabitants. The land does not disappear, and Jews do not disappear, and they are not excluded from redemption in Christ. And if God continues to have a special love for Jerusalem, it is not about the city or the land. It is part and parcel of his love for the Son. It is never about land----it is always about Christ.

But I know, you will still think you adequately answered the question. There is no way to make a person see what they do not want to see.

I would go so far to say that it is the very reason that God made the possession of the land a conditional covenant. Because it is not about the land but about Christ. First page to last page.

I did answer it based on the correct biblical understanding of the issues. That you (predictably) will not accept it, is not my problem. You have never ever bothered to examine my work, so I completely understand your unfounded accusations and attitude.

 

[Arial]

I did answer it based on the correct biblical understanding of the issues. That you (predictably) will not accept it, is not my problem. You have never ever bothered to examine my work, so I completely understand your unfounded accusations and attitude.

You answered it according to YOUR understanding of the issues. Which I don't think is correct based on the contradictions it produces in the Bible and the fact that its premise and focus is wrong. The Bible is not primarily the story of national Israel. It neither starts there or finishes there. The Bible is primarily the story of redemption as it plays out in our history. It begins with creation so we see who God is. Goes to the fall, giving the problem to be solved and the consequences of the fall. Immediately turns to the means of rectifying this with a promise in Gen 3 when God curses the serpent. "The seed of the woman will crush your head, and you will bruise your heel." From there forward we should set our eye primarily on the Seed for he is there all the way to Rev 21:1-8----which is the goal. (It is also pictured in Is 11.) The land involved ultimately is all the earth restored. When one places an entire focus on a single small land mass, the whole redemptive account is missed as a redemptive account.

Why should I examine your work? What is so important about your work as opposed to the work of God in giving his word to me? You, on the other hand, while posing as engaged in a back and forth communication, failed to address a single point that I made in that supposed communication. You just insulted me again, saying I made accusations against you when I did not. (A logical fallacy.) And implied I had a specific attitude with no specifety given, and the implication that you have a way of knowing what my attitude is. If one is paying attention and remembering, it is the very thing I brought up in my second comment in post #31.

So, since that seems to be the only type of comments that will be forthcoming, I suppose this is another place where the dispensationalist loses interest in order to leave with gas lighting.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I did answer it based on the correct biblical understanding of the issues. That you (predictably) will not accept it, is not my problem.

You answered it according to YOUR understanding of the issues. Which I don't think is correct based on the contradictions it produces in the Bible and the fact that its premise and focus is wrong. The Bible is not primarily the story of national Israel. It neither starts there or finishes there. The Bible is primarily the story of redemption as it plays out in our history. It begins with creation so we see who God is. Goes to the fall, giving the problem to be solved and the consequences of the fall. Immediately turns to the means of rectifying this with a promise in Gen 3 when God curses the serpent. "The seed of the woman will crush your head, and you will bruise your heel." From there forward we should set our eye primarily on the Seed for he is there all the way to Rev 21:1-8----which is the goal. (It is also pictured in Is 11.) The land involved ultimately is all the earth restored. When one places an entire focus on a single small land mass, the whole redemptive account is missed as a redemptive account.

Why should I examine your work? What is so important about your work as opposed to the work of God in giving his word to me? You, on the other hand, while posing as engaged in a back and forth communication, failed to address a single point that I made in that supposed communication. You just insulted me again, saying I made accusations against you when I did not. (A logical fallacy.) And implied I had a specific attitude with no specifety given, and the implication that you have a way of knowing what my attitude is. If one is paying attention and remembering, it is the very thing I brought up in my second comment in post #31.

So, since that seems to be the only type of comments that will be forthcoming, I suppose this is another place where the dispensationalist loses interest in order to leave with gas lighting.

It's just all so much blather. Nothing you state is accurate or true. It's all your opinion. You have not dealt accurately with any of the verses I put forward. And there are so many more I could have included. And have included in my published 450 page book. I've researched these topics for over 40 years. Your "what it means to me" attitude is not how you accurately study God's word.

 

[Arial]

It's just all so much blather. Nothing you state is accurate or true. It's all your opinion. You have not dealt accurately with any of the verses I put forward. And there are so many more I could have included. And have included in my published 450 page book. I've researched these topics for over 40 years. Your "what it means to me" attitude is not how you accurately study God's word.

More personal accusations and no substance.

I would have dealt accurately with all the verses you put forward had you made it possible to quote them. To say something is an opinion and therefore not valid is a cop out at best. It is also a fallacious argument since having an opinion does not automatically make that opinion wrong. You also present your opinion but they only ever come from one view without examining any other view. You support your opinion with your opinion.

To make your opinion valid, you would need to (in this case) demonstrate that the land mass of Israel is the central issue of redemption, that Israel in Scripture always refers to that land mass and Jews, rather than spiritual Israel and the way Paul exegetes and interprets OT passages. You would need to demonstrate with the scriptures, devoid of presupposition, that God has two "his people".

You would need to support without eisegesis of scripture that "the last days" refers to a literal thousand year reign of Jesus and a restoration of the land to Jews. You would need to address types of covenant and apply them correctly. You have dealt with nothing I have posted. You only turned on me and your opinion of me as your support of your opinion.

The whole thrust of the "authority" of your opinion, and your validation of it, seems to be yourself and all that you have done. An appeal to one's own authority fallacy. The posts are logical fallacy after logical fallacy. That would not inspire any critical thinker to read a 450 page book you wrote.

Another fallacy is to suggest that I determine what the Bible means by "what it means to me." There was no evidence of that in any of my posts for I supported what I said. It seems land and ego are much more important than Christ being the center and purpose of everything in the word of God. It leaves no room for the wanna be's.

So if that is all you can do, just make personal off topic remarks, I suggest you take this moment to end the discussion, that you affirmed with a like, that you had no interest in as I had not caught your interest. Neither I nor the forum is interested in posts that are nothing more than arrogance flaunting itself with meaningless arguing.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

More personal accusations and no substance.

I would have dealt accurately with all the verses you put forward had you made it possible to quote them. To say something is an opinion and therefore not valid is a cop out at best. It is also a fallacious argument since having an opinion does not automatically make that opinion wrong. You also present your opinion but they only ever come from one view without examining any other view. You support your opinion with your opinion.

To make your opinion valid, you would need to (in this case) demonstrate that the land mass of Israel is the central issue of redemption, that Israel in Scripture always refers to that land mass and Jews, rather than spiritual Israel and the way Paul exegetes and interprets OT passages. You would need to demonstrate with the scriptures, devoid of presupposition, that God has two "his people".

You would need to support without eisegesis of scripture that "the last days" refers to a literal thousand year reign of Jesus and a restoration of the land to Jews. You would need to address types of covenant and apply them correctly. You have dealt with nothing I have posted. You only turned on me and your opinion of me as your support of your opinion.

The whole thrust of the "authority" of your opinion, and your validation of it, seems to be yourself and all that you have done. An appeal to one's own authority fallacy. The posts are logical fallacy after logical fallacy. That would not inspire any critical thinker to read a 450 page book you wrote.

Another fallacy is to suggest that I determine what the Bible means by "what it means to me." There was no evidence of that in any of my posts for I supported what I said. It seems land and ego are much more important than Christ being the center and purpose of everything in the word of God. It leaves no room for the wanna be's.

So if that is all you can do, just make personal off topic remarks, I suggest you take this moment to end the discussion, that you affirmed with a like, that you had no interest in as I had not caught your interest. Neither I nor the forum is interested in posts that are nothing more than arrogance flaunting itself with meaningless arguing.

You've proven yourself in the past to be no interested in actual honest discussion. You are getting the level that you deserve. Try to discuss the simple things, then maybe the deeper things can be introduced. But if all you have is accusations and gas lighting, there's no point. All discussion end up this way when your precious world view is threatened.
You've already demonstrated this in this thread with @CrowCross

 

[TMSO]

This thread concerns only one aspect of dispensationalism, and that is the teaching that the thousand years in Revelation is a literal thousand years. And that during that thousand years, Jesus is reigning in Jerusalem; that it is a time when the church has been removed and God is dealing with geo/politcal Israel, fulfilling all the promises made to Israel in the OT, including possession of the land and a complete restoration of national Israel.

The question is: How do you deal with these passages concerning the land?

After Solomon had built the temple and his own house, prayed concerning it and the people of Israel, God appeared to him and spoke to him. This is in 1 Kings 9: 1-9.






9 As soon as Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and the king’s house and all that Solomon desired to build, 2 the Lord appeared to Solomon a second time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon. 3 And the Lord said to him, “I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you have made before me. I have consecrated this house that you have built, nby putting my name there forever. oMy eyes and my heart will be there for all time. 4 And as for you, if you will pwalk before me, qas David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my rules, 5 rthen I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’ 6 sBut if you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, 7 tthen I will cut off Israel from the land that I have given them, uand the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight, vand Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples. 8 And this house will become a heap of ruins.1 Everyone passing by it will be astonished and will hiss, and they will say, w‘Why has the Lord done thus to this land and to this house?’ 9 Then they will say, ‘Because xthey abandoned the Lord their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt and laid hold on other gods and worshiped them and served them. Therefore the Lord has brought all this disaster on them.’ ”

1 Kings 10:6-8

So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountains east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrifices to their god's.

Just some of Deuteronomy 30:
"“So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the Lord your God has banished you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. 5The Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.

6 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today."

So AFTER the blessings and the curse have come upon them, God promises to bring them back to the land, to save them, and curse those who hate and persecute them. Does this appear to line up with what you are trying to say above, that somehow God didn't say these things? Or is it that it is part of the curse that will reach an end, at which point God reconciles with Israel? (Again, even in this case it is obvious given He says that He will circumcise all tier hearts, and the hearts of their descendants to love God as He demands, that this speaks of complete reconciliation. So this would, most probably, refer to the remnant/elect of God in Israel. That would mean the above is only for a period of time, and not until the end of time.

 

[EarlyActs]

The enthronement of Christ in the resurrection is actually what David foresaw; Acts 2:30,31.

 

[Eleanor]

Just some of Deuteronomy 30:
"“So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the Lord your God has banished you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. 5The Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.

6 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today."
So AFTER the blessings and the curse have come upon them, God promises to bring them back to the land,

Which was fulfilled in a remnant in the return after the exile, just as all God's irrevocable promises to Israel are being fulfilled in a remnant now.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

This thread concerns only one aspect of dispensationalism, and that is the teaching that the thousand years in Revelation is a literal thousand years. And that during that thousand years, Jesus is reigning in Jerusalem; that it is a time when the church has been removed and God is dealing with geo/politcal Israel, fulfilling all the promises made to Israel in the OT, including possession of the land and a complete restoration of national Israel.

Dispensationalism does Not teach the bolded part.

It teaches God is dealing with a new world order. Where each nation, not just Israel, is fulfilling its purpose and worshiping God

The question is: How do you deal with these passages concerning the land?

After Solomon had built the temple and his own house, prayed concerning it and the people of Israel, God appeared to him and spoke to him. This is in 1 Kings 9: 1-9.






9 As soon as Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and the king’s house and all that Solomon desired to build, 2 the Lord appeared to Solomon a second time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon. 3 And the Lord said to him, “I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you have made before me. I have consecrated this house that you have built, nby putting my name there forever. oMy eyes and my heart will be there for all time. 4 And as for you, if you will pwalk before me, qas David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my rules, 5 rthen I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’ 6 sBut if you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, 7 tthen I will cut off Israel from the land that I have given them, uand the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight, vand Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples. 8 And this house will become a heap of ruins.1 Everyone passing by it will be astonished and will hiss, and they will say, w‘Why has the Lord done thus to this land and to this house?’ 9 Then they will say, ‘Because xthey abandoned the Lord their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt and laid hold on other gods and worshiped them and served them. Therefore the Lord has brought all this disaster on them.’ ”

1 Kings 10:6-8

So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountains east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrifices to their god's.

Actually you answered your own question.

It is also found in leviticus 26

And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me,
28 then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.
30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you.
31 I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your sweet aromas.
32 I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it.
33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you;

In both of these cases. God promises that for them to live in peace in the land. They had to obey hi, If they turned from him, he would turn in them, up to and including destroying their high places (like the temple) and tearing down their cities and scattering them in Gentile nations. As punishment.

This also happened three different times Assyria and Northern Israel, Babylon and southern Israel, As prophesied by Jeremiah and at the end of that time, was prayed hard by Daniel the prophet trying to make intercessary prayer, And God in his love sending gabriel down to say they will not restored now. But they will be given 70 weeks. At the end of the time Israel will do the following

“Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city,

The 70 weeks are for Daniels people. And his Holy city (jerusalem)

To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy.

This would be a different study, But you can not take dispensationalism out of one small passage, it is a whole bunch of scripture put together.

Back to lev 26, It says if Israel repents, and they confess their sins and their father’s sins. God will remember his covenant with their fathers.