Which Israel In The Grace Era Is Recognized By God?

[Eternally-Grateful]

However, As paul makes clear in romans 9 - 11 God is not done with Israel as a nation. He stil has plans for them. But not until after they repent. Which the prophets state will happen at the fullness of the gentiles.. (when the gentiles complete their time)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

All the of the restoration passages have a spiritually vibrant Israel, for ex., the Joel 2 quoted in Acts 2. And anyway, doesn't that 'date' the moment of the kind of restoration the apostles thought was happening, and isn't that what Christ taught them for 40 days?

Can you demonstrate clearly that the 'long reign of Christ' is not reality right now? In your view, you have believe it is a future thing.

Christ, we are told will rule with a rod of Iron

We are told he will rule in israel

We are told he will rule the world. All nations will worship him

We are told when he rules. Northern and southern kingdoms of israel will be made one again, be back in their land given their fathers. And they too will worship Jesus having repented of the sins of the fathers

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor:

"Grace era" alludes to the ushering in of the Christian community, the ekklesia of Christ, the new covenant [Acts, chapter2].​

1) The ekklesia (called-out assembly) was also in the wilderness in the OT (Ac 7:38).

The new covenant scriptures were written some years after the new covenant was initiated.​

Buff

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

1) The ekklesia (called-out assembly) was also in the wilderness in the OT (Ac 7:38).

yes, Israel was the “called out ones” after Egypt and moses..

 

[EarlyActs]

Christ, we are told will rule with a rod of Iron

We are told he will rule in israel

We are told he will rule the world. All nations will worship him

We are told when he rules. Northern and southern kingdoms of israel will be made one again, be back in their land given their fathers. And they too will worship Jesus having repented of the sins of the fathers

What I'm about to mention cannot be tackled without a year of inquiry--less if you have the luxury of full time study.

The NT quotes/alludes to the OT 2500 times. The best official, published list I'm aware of is in the ABS Greet text (Metzger) when the dictionary and references have been included.

The short list of course, is the first 20 times Acts has quotes of the OT, and this material is surely as close (in time) as we can get to the 40 days where 'Moses, the Psalms and the prophets were explained, that the Christ should suffer and be raised in glory, etc.' A translation with notes will have these marked (NIV, NET, etc).

One of the first things you will see in the 20, hopefully, is that a person must realize what the grammar of Acts 2:30,31 is saying about the reign of Christ. It is saying David saw the resurrection event coming, and that is the official enthronement of Christ. Once this is seen, all the 'kingdom of God' expressions fall into place, and the enthroned King concept of Acts 2--4 will also.

That concept is that his kingdom is imperative; it is what should be. It does not mean you can pick up the newspaper then or now and find that all is bliss. In fact, the declaration that Christ's kingdom is imperative for all mankind only makes the shameful elites of the world try harder to resist, says Acts 4, quoting Ps 2. This is why all the declarations of Christ and the apostles have that 'almost here, but not quite' feel about them: it is near, at hand, upon you, among you, etc, etc., etc. And why there is the rebuke in Acts 1 about it.

If the apostles meant to detail a future 'reign in Israel,' they sure messed up. Christ even told them to stop thinking about it in Acts 1. In Acts 26, Paul says that Israel is still (in the early 60s) thinking a national kingdom messiah is coming, instead of that the resurrection was already Christ's enthronement for all men. He actually says we (Christians) declare nothing beyond than 'Christ was to suffer and then be proclaimed throughout the world'. I see no notes there that 'fix' the 'problem' of a kingdom for Israel. (This is why I have a thread here called the 'three lost verses of Acts'--three places where, if a nation-race kingdom was supposed to come, it should have been explained.)

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

What I'm about to mention cannot be tackled without a year of inquiry--less if you have the luxury of full time study.

its all Good. I have studied this for a few decades now..

The NT quotes/alludes to the OT 2500 times. The best official, published list I'm aware of is in the ABS Greet text (Metzger) when the dictionary and references have been included.

The short list of course, is the first 20 times Acts has quotes of the OT, and this material is surely as close (in time) as we can get to the 40 days where 'Moses, the Psalms and the prophets were explained, that the Christ should suffer and be raised in glory, etc.' A translation with notes will have these marked (NIV, NET, etc).

One of the first things you will see in the 20, hopefully, is that a person must realize what the grammar of Acts 2:30,31 is saying about the reign of Christ. It is saying David saw the resurrection event coming, and that is the official enthronement of Christ. Once this is seen, all the 'kingdom of God' expressions fall into place, and the enthroned King concept of Acts 2--4 will also.

That concept is that his kingdom is imperative; it is what should be. It does not mean you can pick up the newspaper then or now and find that all is bliss. In fact, the declaration that Christ's kingdom is imperative for all mankind only makes the shameful elites of the world try harder to resist, says Acts 4, quoting Ps 2. This is why all the declarations of Christ and the apostles have that 'almost here, but not quite' feel about them: it is near, at hand, upon you, among you, etc, etc., etc. And why there is the rebuke in Acts 1 about it.

John the baptist said the kingdom of God is at hand.

Jesus said unless one is born again, he can not see the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God is here, with the Christ leading through the church.

But is this the same as the kingdom God promised David.. about a king who will sit on David's throne, in a house David was not allowed to build. who would rule with an iron fist. But also with a loving heart.

If the apostles meant to detail a future 'reign in Israel,' they sure messed up. Christ even told them to stop thinking about it in Acts 1. In Acts 26, Paul says that Israel is still (in the early 60s) thinking a national kingdom messiah is coming, instead of that the resurrection was already Christ's enthronement for all men. He actually says we (Christians) declare nothing beyond than 'Christ was to suffer and then be proclaimed throughout the world'. I see no notes there that 'fix' the 'problem' of a kingdom for Israel. (This is why I have a thread here called the 'three lost verses of Acts'--three places where, if a nation-race kingdom was supposed to come, it should have been explained.)

But again, This speaks of two things

one is Gods kingdom through the church

the other is Gods rul through his son sitting on David's throne.

We must seperate the 2

 

[EarlyActs]

its all Good. I have studied this for a few decades now..

John the baptist said the kingdom of God is at hand.

Jesus said unless one is born again, he can not see the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God is here, with the Christ leading through the church.

But is this the same as the kingdom God promised David.. about a king who will sit on David's throne, in a house David was not allowed to build. who would rule with an iron fist. But also with a loving heart.

But again, This speaks of two things

one is Gods kingdom through the church

the other is Gods rul through his son sitting on David's throne.

We must seperate the 2

They are not separate, if you know Acts. The key passsge of course is the Ps 110 that Christ debated last with the temple.

The grammar of Acts 2 clearly means that David saw the resurrection as the enthronement. Not plural, not one now and another later. Not two programs, that is a Rothschild funded myth, who hired Schofield.

After that grammar in Acts 2:30, Peter declared that God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ—enthroned. That is the piercing climax of the sermon and there is no lost verse about another firm later.

The D’ism system is fundamentally confusing bc it claims to supply a unified view of the Bible ‘since the Bible makes no sense’ on these kingdom questions..

There is no way a geographic kingdom dominating the Middle East can be the same thing as the fellowship and impact of all Christians down through time all over the world for the Godpel. That is a ridiculous idea.

A

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

They are not separate, if you know Acts. The key passsge of course is the Ps 110 that Christ debated last with the temple.

actually they are, quite different, You look at the kingdom age, it loo9ks nothing like the last 2000 years

The grammar of Acts 2 clearly means that David saw the resurrection as the enthronement. Not plural, not one now and another later. Not two programs, that is a Rothschild funded myth, who hired Schofield.

After that grammar in Acts 2:30, Peter declared that God had made Jesus both Lord and Christ—enthroned. That is the piercing climax of the sermon and there is no lost verse about another firm later.

The D’ism system is fundamentally confusing bc it claims to supply a unified view of the Bible ‘since the Bible makes no sense’ on these kingdom questions..

There is no way a geographic kingdom dominating the Middle East can be the same thing as the fellowship and impact of all Christians down through time all over the world for the Godpel. That is a ridiculous idea.

A

Acts 2 is one passage

the kingdom of God and the reign of Christ on earth is spoken of all throughout the prophets and are mentioned by Paul in romans and revelation. Including the time of the end as Jesus spoke in Matt 24

 

[EarlyActs]

actually they are, quite different, You look at the kingdom age, it loo9ks nothing like the last 2000 years



Acts 2 is one passage

the kingdom of God and the reign of Christ on earth is spoken of all throughout the prophets and are mentioned by Paul in romans and revelation. Including the time of the end as Jesus spoke in Matt 24

re not separate
There are no 'lost verses' of Acts or anywhere in the NT, where the apostles explain the arrival of the kingdom, but then add 'Oh, right, there's this other thing that is supposed to happen--Judaism comes back, under Christ too!, so forget what the letter to Hebrews says (and btw, who are the Hebrews?), and everything that was said in Eph 2-3 is really a bit of nonsense, you know.'

If they were going to do that, it would be in Rom 15, Acts 13, and 26 and Acts 2-4 and it is not. Acts 3 tells us that the time of refreshing was present and seals this by quoting 'in your seed, all the nations will be blessed' as a present endeavor that the nation should be involved in.

 

[EarlyActs]

actually they are, quite different, You look at the kingdom age, it loo9ks nothing like the last 2000 years



Acts 2 is one passage

the kingdom of God and the reign of Christ on earth is spoken of all throughout the prophets and are mentioned by Paul in romans and revelation. Including the time of the end as Jesus spoke in Matt 24

Acts 2-4 is three, but Rom 1, Eph 1, Phil 2, Rom 15, Acts 13, Acts 26, Heb 1 all say the same thing.

The reign on earth began with His enthronement. It is what is supposed to be. It is not in the news; and that's why all the expressions like 'near you, within you, among you, etc.' anytime the restoration is mentioned the Spirit is poured out; there is no such thing as a Spirit-less "Israel" as is found in the geolographic location today. There is nothing in Romans; he meant that he wanted all his people to join in being missionaries. It's the same messge/warning as Acts 3! But he was realistic enough to know that 'only a few' would be saved, v14.

The Olivet hinges on one thing which most views fail. Mt 24:29. Before that is about 1st century Judea and neighbors; it is direct, immediate, urgent, life-saving. It matches Daniel 8-9 exactly, though many get lost by the antecedent in v27. 2, the original expectation (found all through the NT) is that the end of the world and the judgement was expected 'right after these things (in Judea)' as Rom 2 says: 'wrath on the Jew and then the Gentile.' 3, the wrath on the world was postponed, and three things indicate this:

1st, the final hour was up to the Father alone; Mt 24
2nd, there were 4 options as to when the end would take place, Mk 13. Obviously the last is the correct, we now know.
3rd, Peter had to correct the view in 2 P 3 that nothing happened right away. It does not mean confusion or failure, but redemption.

Referring to the Rev as the authoritative view of the future is confusing when the 1st page says twice that these things would happen shortly. It is actually a confirmation of the wide expectation of world-wrath after Israel's. Which is the same situation as Mt 24 etc, properly read.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

re not separate
There are no 'lost verses' of Acts or anywhere in the NT,

I never said there was

where the apostles explain the arrival of the kingdom, but then add 'Oh, right, there's this other thing that is supposed to happen--Judaism comes back, under Christ too!, so forget what the letter to Hebrews says (and btw, who are the Hebrews?), and everything that was said in Eph 2-3 is really a bit of nonsense, you know.'

Judaism will never come back. This is a misnomer and a false idealogy from some people.

If they were going to do that, it would be in Rom 15, Acts 13, and 26 and Acts 2-4 and it is not. Acts 3 tells us that the time of refreshing was present and seals this by quoting 'in your seed, all the nations will be blessed' as a present endeavor that the nation should be involved in.

Actually it will be in ezek 37. Romans 11 and many other places. which are yet future

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Acts 2-4 is three, but Rom 1, Eph 1, Phil 2, Rom 15, Acts 13, Acts 26, Heb 1 all say the same thing.

The reign on earth began with His enthronement. It is what is supposed to be. It is not in the news; and that's why all the expressions like 'near you, within you, among you, etc.' anytime the restoration is mentioned the Spirit is poured out; there is no such thing as a Spirit-less "Israel" as is found in the geolographic location today. There is nothing in Romans; he meant that he wanted all his people to join in being missionaries. It's the same messge/warning as Acts 3! But he was realistic enough to know that 'only a few' would be saved, v14.

Jesus is in heaven right now. Lets try not to get catholic and say the pope is Christs ruler.

The Olivet hinges on one thing which most views fail. Mt 24:29. Before that is about 1st century Judea and neighbors; it is direct, immediate, urgent, life-saving. It matches Daniel 8-9 exactly, though many get lost by the antecedent in v27. 2, the original expectation (found all through the NT) is that the end of the world and the judgement was expected 'right after these things (in Judea)' as Rom 2 says: 'wrath on the Jew and then the Gentile.' 3, the wrath on the world was postponed, and three things indicate this:

1st, the final hour was up to the Father alone; Mt 24
2nd, there were 4 options as to when the end would take place, Mk 13. Obviously the last is the correct, we now know.
3rd, Peter had to correct the view in 2 P 3 that nothing happened right away. It does not mean confusion or failure, but redemption.

Referring to the Rev as the authoritative view of the future is confusing when the 1st page says twice that these things would happen shortly. It is actually a confirmation of the wide expectation of world-wrath after Israel's. Which is the same situation as Mt 24 etc, properly read.

The olivet answers three questions

1. When will these things be (not one stone left) Fulfilled in 70 AD
2. What will be the sign of your coming (his return)
3. What will be the end of the age.

Jesus gave signs that have not happened even today

 

[Eleanor]

yes, Israel was the “called out ones” after Egypt and moses..

ekklesia = called-out assembly

Was Moses an "assembly"?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So I guess Moses leading out the assembly of Israel from Egypt was not an assembly?

 

[EarlyActs]

I never said there was

Judaism will never come back. This is a misnomer and a false idealogy from some people.

Actually it will be in ezek 37. Romans 11 and many other places. which are yet future

But all 'prophecy' I hear about has Judaism coming back. I've even heard otherwise great pastors say that Christ will be crucified again for Jews sins! The return of Judaism means the temple has to operate and that has to be in that confined geographic space.

You may not say there are 'lost verses' but the gravity of your comments is that you think they are there. The passages mentioned, where the future should have been mentioned, do not mention them, even if it means that Paul would be killed; he still doesn't say 'you know guys, all this fuss about Christianity doesn't matter, because there is going to be worship at the one temple again on earth... etc etc'

You claim to know how the NT handles the OT, but guess what? Out of 2500 quotes or allusions, none address Ezek 37. Why? because enough has been made clear about the present kingdom. Aren't you at least curious why Scofield Dispensationalism fumbles most of the NT quotes, but focuses so much on one passage not addressed by Christ or the apostles?

 

[EarlyActs]

Jesus is in heaven right now. Lets try not to get catholic and say the pope is Christs ruler.

The olivet answers three questions

1. When will these things be (not one stone left) Fulfilled in 70 AD
2. What will be the sign of your coming (his return)
3. What will be the end of the age.

Jesus gave signs that have not happened even today

There is nothing in what I have said about any person on earth; sheesh. Christ is enthroned and all people are to know this. He will dash to pieces those who do not recognize and honor him! We are envoys of that message! Ambassadors represent kingdoms!

You are totally off on Olivet. He says immediately that those stones they were druelling over would be pulled down and burned. Everything before Mt 24:29 took place in the 1st century, including the near-collapse of the federal unity of the Roman Empire. War, revolution, famine, earthquake and the signs Joel 2 mentions. But it is all local. He is not speaking of worldwide until after v29. That's what was originally believed, and it is everywhere in the NT.

Except that the Father decided otherwise, to save even more people.

The language about Sabbath trouble, fleeing that specific city, and the desolating guy in the temple all took place. It's very important to notice what Josephus the runaway Israeli captain did in reference to these things.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

But all 'prophecy' I hear about has Judaism coming back.

I have not at all heard this.

Israel must repent and confess their sin and the sins of the father first (lev 26)

That means they are no longer following Judaism.

I've even heard otherwise great pastors say that Christ will be crucified again for Jews sins!

OUCH! Wow I never heard this. RUN!!!

The return of Judaism means the temple has to operate and that has to be in that confined geographic space.

Well in order for the abomination of desolation spoke of in Dan 9 and Matt 24. This would be true. But remember, at this time Israel is still in sin

You may not say there are 'lost verses' but the gravity of your comments is that you think they are there. The passages mentioned, where the future should have been mentioned, do not mention them, even if it means that Paul would be killed; he still doesn't say 'you know guys, all this fuss about Christianity doesn't matter, because there is going to be worship at the one temple again on earth... etc etc'

I doubt paul would need to talk about something that even he I understood owuld not ha[[en for along time yet.

Paul was focused on the here and now. Unless context dictated it (like in romans 11)

You claim to know how the NT handles the OT, but guess what? Out of 2500 quotes or allusions, none address Ezek 37. Why?

Because Ezekiel 37 has not happened yet. it is yet future. Hence it would not need addressed in the NT

because enough has been made clear about the present kingdom. Aren't you at least curious why Scofield Dispensationalism fumbles most of the NT quotes, but focuses so much on one passage not addressed by Christ or the apostles?

lol. Tell me about scofield dispensationalism. I have studied it well..

Jesus addressed the future in Matt 24. He spoke prophecy by reading a few verses of the scroll. And said today this is fulfilled

If this is fulfilled. We can be assured the rest will be too. Yet the rest has not happened until this day

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

There is nothing in what I have said about any person on earth; sheesh. Christ is enthroned and all people are to know this. He will dash to pieces those who do not recognize and honor him! We are envoys of that message! Ambassadors represent kingdoms!

You are totally off on Olivet. He says immediately that those stones they were druelling over would be pulled down and burned. Everything before Mt 24:29 took place in the 1st century, including the near-collapse of the federal unity of the Roman Empire. War, revolution, famine, earthquake and the signs Joel 2 mentions. But it is all local. He is not speaking of worldwide until after v29. That's what was originally believed, and it is everywhere in the NT.

Actually no it did not

The birth pangs never happened. But if we look. We can see them appear to be happening today
There was never an abomination of desolation. Which tells those in jerusalem to run, because then there will be great tribulation so severe. If God does not stop it himself. No life would survive (an extinction even was not even possible in 70 AD)

Except that the Father decided otherwise, to save even more people.

Yes he is patient willing that non should perish.

The language about Sabbath trouble, fleeing that specific city, and the desolating guy in the temple all took place.

No it did not.

Not only did it not happen. Jesus said when ti did, the people living would SEE IT IN THE HOLY PLACE.

This was not possible in 70 AD

It's very important to notice what Josephus the runaway Israeli captain did in reference to these things.

Yes it is. And even he does not show these things taking place.

Remember WW1 and WW2 were far more severe than 70 AD. And the time of Jacobs trouble spoken of in the OT says when this happene.s israel will be saved.. Israel was scattered and killed in 70 AD. Not saved