WW III and the rebuilding of the temple

[TMSO]

Mock all you want but at least try and use an analogy that relates to what it is being applied to.

That wasn't meant to mock. I should have left out the woohoo, but that would have lessened the intended impact. The point is that there are many different facets to choice/election.

What you consider the big picture is wrong. But I don't believe no one in Israel is saved and never said I did.

Poof. So much for God's great redemption and reconciliation. And I was looking forward to it. (I say this because what I see in scripture, and have presented, is a great redemption/reconciliation on par with the parable of the prodigal son.) The son was with the father, the son rejected the father and left, the son returned and reconciled. An important point to remember is that the son left with his inheritance. He returned with nothing, but the father accepted him again.

Can you give your explanation of the 1/3rd of the population of Israel that will be purged and purified, next to the 2/3rds who at the same time are to die, and how that has already happened?

It does fit into it. You simply fail to understand what I have said about the millennium, or reject it and then assuming you are right tell me my view doesn't fit your view. I disagree with your view of the millennium and you have yet to even discuss my view. You just keep repeating yours as though that is a valid argument all by itself.

I forgot we don't have civil discourse here. My mistake. My point isn't to say you are wrong. I disagree with your view of the millennium, not the existence of it. The point is to show you that you may have it in the wrong place. You may have misunderstood its place. Amillennialism came after pre-millennialism and it is because the premillennialists and St. Augustine had a falling out. However, up to that time it was understood that Jesus had not returned yet. In fact, the belief was that Jesus would return in the 4th century. And that was through math and other beliefs. (as God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, so Jesus would return at the end of 6000 years to bring sabbath rest to creation for 1000 years. Something like that.) Someone then calculated the time they believed the Earth was created, and then calculated 6000 (I believe, I haven't really researched it that in depth) and came up with the 4th century or thereabouts. For some reason 5500 years comes to mind. I think that is the approximate time they came up with for when Jesus was born, or when He died or something like that.) The chiliasts threw huge lavish parties since Jesus was on the way, and St. Augustine was all about austerity, so they had a major falling out.

It isn't about how or when it is about WHAT.

It is about when. Israel will be saved, as a separate entity at the time, as the only other entity are believers already. And the when is the point. God speaks of the time, Paul speaks of the time, Jesus Himself spoke of the time in Luke. The point is the faithfulness of God. Everyone is like, well God has rejected Israel. Paul, channeling God through the spirit said, nope, God has not rejected His people Israel. [I believe the Bible is inspired.] The Bible has a whole seems to show that there will be a great reconciliation between God and Israel (the remnant elect of Israel) right before the consummation, and it will be glorious. The prodigal son has returned. And then there is the elder son, upset with the father for taking back the prodigal son...

 

[TMSO]

That is a very narrow purpose. What was his purpose in his covenant relationship with Israel. Take your time. Think it through.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. He created Adam and Eve and they threw away everything God gave to them for a piece of fruit. The were thrown out of the garden, but not before God told Eve that their salvation would come through ONE of her descendants. They then had children, Cain, avid agricultural specialist, and Abel, the anti-vegan slaughterer of captive sheep. (I'm just trying to have a little fun with it.)
We move on to the flood. There are many stories as to why the flood occurred, and the one I lend credence to is that angels possessed men and went in to women, and the children were hybrids, the nephillim. As such, they were iredeemable. No sacrifice could save them, and apparently, given time, they would have overrun the earth. No one was saved from the flood. Noah and family were on a boat, so they were not saved from the flood, but through the flood on the ark that was an arketype... I mean archetype of Christ saving believers through the world flooded with sin.
Then we have later have Abraham, whom God ordered to leave His home in Ur. God made promises to Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation through his son Isaac. The same promise was passed on down to Isaac, and then to Jacob, renamed Israel. Their was foreshadowing with Isaac where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, and when God stopped them, God provided a substitute sacrifice in the form of a ram trapped in the underbrush. In the same way, God would provide a Lamb as a substitute for mankind. However, it couldn't simply be a person, but was God Himself, as Jesus.
When Israel was founded, God told Moses that they would rebel, not a question of if, not even a question of when because God told Moses. He gave Moses a song of curses for what would take place. However, he also said that there would come a time when all the blessings and curses have been fulfilled, and things would then be as they should be. He speaks of a last time when they would turn back to God, and he would bring them back to their land.
There is the 70 weeks prophecy where God gives His decree, His command for Daniel's people (Israel) and the holy city (Jerusalem). It speaks of the prince coming, and then after, the prince being cut off. (Triumphal entry, and crucifixion). After he is cut off, before the 70th week, the people of the prince to come destroy the city and sanctuary. Then, for the last week, a covenant is strenthened, and then violated after 3 1/2 years. At that time comes one who will stand in God's temple and declare himself God, putting an end to the sacrifices, and putting an end to all religion in the world other then the worship of himself. At the end of the 3 1/2 years, Jesus Himself deals with this person. At this time we see the final purpose God has for Israel, which is reconciliation. God has already reconciled with the Gentiles, the remnant of Israel is the last group to reconcile. They, who rejected Jesus, not God, as Paul did, will see and recognize Him, and be saved as Paul was.

Your view stops at the cross and then seems to say Israel has been rejected. While God, through Paul's writings, says no, they have not been rejected. At that time, it was the time of the gentiles. In Luke it is said as:
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the [o]land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This is in line with what Paul says in Romans, where Israel is partially blinded/hardened until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. There will come a time when Jerusalem is no longer trampled under foot by the Gentiles. In looking at the world today, it appears that such a time may be close at hand. I'm not saying this is it, but, one cannot deny how uncanny it is that Jews were gathered up from around the world and brought back to Israel in 1948. The one who brought in the Abraham Accords (an accord is like a covenant) also moved to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel by moving the embassy to Jerusalem. His political aspirations took a fatal blow, but he is back again. He will again try to bring peace to the world, as he did his first time around. Again, this speaks only to how close this can appear to prophecy. I don't believe this is it, but is the fig tree showing that summer is near. It's not here yet, but it won't be much longer.

To believe God has solely one purpose for Israel and that Israel only existed to benefit the Gentiles is a little short sighted. [That point of view is to help you see some of the outcomes that I could ask you to address.] It's kind of like saying Calvinism teaches double predestination, or that God created evil. Calvin had to address that, and he did. Some of it is funny, but most of it showed the sad state of heresy in his day and age. And, most of the questions are the same questions you can find on the calvinism vs. arminianism forum here. No change. The lie hasn't even evolved. If they knew the sort of things the people asking those questions believed, they might stop asking the questions, though I doubt it.

There is but one purpose to God's redemption in this world, and that is to bring glory to Himself. Paul says there are two main themes to redemption, three depending on how one builds it out. The disobedience of Israel in the rejection of Jesus, the obedience of the Gentiles in the acceptance of the gospel due to the disobedience of Israel, and the mercy God will have on Israel due to the obedience of the Gentiles. All have been locked in disobedience that God may have mercy on all. Paul does not say that Israel started in disobedience. I believe that is because it is understood that Israel are the chosen people of God. As such, it is understood (though not necessarily true at all times) that they follow God. The disobedience in Paul's discourse is the rejection of the Messiah, after God had taken all that time to tell them that He is coming, and here is how you will know. The Gentiles weren't the chosen one of God, didn't have the oracles of God, etc. They are shown as being disobedient since they are not the people of God. The gospel came to them because of the rejection of Jesus by Israel, but instead of rejecting it like Israel and continuing in disobedience, they, who didn't have God as Israel did, accepted. So when called to obedience, they obeyed. (Obviously not all of them, but it was a group, not individuals). Through the obedience of the Gentiles, Israel will find mercy from God. Israel was made disobedient, and the Gentiles came out of disobedience, so that God can have mercy on all. At the end, there will be the church, saved, and the remnant of Israel, not saved. You will then have the remnant of Israel, like Paul, see, recognize, break down, and accept Jesus their King. He will, as mentioned in Matthew, be seen in Jerusalem again, after the remnant cries out "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

 

[Arial]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. He created Adam and Eve and they threw away everything God gave to them for a piece of fruit. The were thrown out of the garden, but not before God told Eve that their salvation would come through ONE of her descendants. They then had children, Cain, avid agricultural specialist, and Abel, the anti-vegan slaughterer of captive sheep. (I'm just trying to have a little fun with it.)
We move on to the flood. There are many stories as to why the flood occurred, and the one I lend credence to is that angels possessed men and went in to women, and the children were hybrids, the nephillim. As such, they were iredeemable. No sacrifice could save them, and apparently, given time, they would have overrun the earth. No one was saved from the flood. Noah and family were on a boat, so they were not saved from the flood, but through the flood on the ark that was an arketype... I mean archetype of Christ saving believers through the world flooded with sin.
Then we have later have Abraham, whom God ordered to leave His home in Ur. God made promises to Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation through his son Isaac. The same promise was passed on down to Isaac, and then to Jacob, renamed Israel. Their was foreshadowing with Isaac where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, and when God stopped them, God provided a substitute sacrifice in the form of a ram trapped in the underbrush. In the same way, God would provide a Lamb as a substitute for mankind. However, it couldn't simply be a person, but was God Himself, as Jesus.
When Israel was founded, God told Moses that they would rebel, not a question of if, not even a question of when because God told Moses. He gave Moses a song of curses for what would take place. However, he also said that there would come a time when all the blessings and curses have been fulfilled, and things would then be as they should be. He speaks of a last time when they would turn back to God, and he would bring them back to their land.
There is the 70 weeks prophecy where God gives His decree, His command for Daniel's people (Israel) and the holy city (Jerusalem). It speaks of the prince coming, and then after, the prince being cut off. (Triumphal entry, and crucifixion). After he is cut off, before the 70th week, the people of the prince to come destroy the city and sanctuary. Then, for the last week, a covenant is strenthened, and then violated after 3 1/2 years. At that time comes one who will stand in God's temple and declare himself God, putting an end to the sacrifices, and putting an end to all religion in the world other then the worship of himself. At the end of the 3 1/2 years, Jesus Himself deals with this person. At this time we see the final purpose God has for Israel, which is reconciliation. God has already reconciled with the Gentiles, the remnant of Israel is the last group to reconcile. They, who rejected Jesus, not God, as Paul did, will see and recognize Him, and be saved as Paul was.

Your view stops at the cross and then seems to say Israel has been rejected. While God, through Paul's writings, says no, they have not been rejected. At that time, it was the time of the gentiles. In Luke it is said as:
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the [o]land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

This is in line with what Paul says in Romans, where Israel is partially blinded/hardened until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. There will come a time when Jerusalem is no longer trampled under foot by the Gentiles. In looking at the world today, it appears that such a time may be close at hand. I'm not saying this is it, but, one cannot deny how uncanny it is that Jews were gathered up from around the world and brought back to Israel in 1948. The one who brought in the Abraham Accords (an accord is like a covenant) also moved to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel by moving the embassy to Jerusalem. His political aspirations took a fatal blow, but he is back again. He will again try to bring peace to the world, as he did his first time around. Again, this speaks only to how close this can appear to prophecy. I don't believe this is it, but is the fig tree showing that summer is near. It's not here yet, but it won't be much longer.

To believe God has solely one purpose for Israel and that Israel only existed to benefit the Gentiles is a little short sighted. [That point of view is to help you see some of the outcomes that I could ask you to address.] It's kind of like saying Calvinism teaches double predestination, or that God created evil. Calvin had to address that, and he did. Some of it is funny, but most of it showed the sad state of heresy in his day and age. And, most of the questions are the same questions you can find on the calvinism vs. arminianism forum here. No change. The lie hasn't even evolved. If they knew the sort of things the people asking those questions believed, they might stop asking the questions, though I doubt it.

There is but one purpose to God's redemption in this world, and that is to bring glory to Himself. Paul says there are two main themes to redemption, three depending on how one builds it out. The disobedience of Israel in the rejection of Jesus, the obedience of the Gentiles in the acceptance of the gospel due to the disobedience of Israel, and the mercy God will have on Israel due to the obedience of the Gentiles. All have been locked in disobedience that God may have mercy on all. Paul does not say that Israel started in disobedience. I believe that is because it is understood that Israel are the chosen people of God. As such, it is understood (though not necessarily true at all times) that they follow God. The disobedience in Paul's discourse is the rejection of the Messiah, after God had taken all that time to tell them that He is coming, and here is how you will know. The Gentiles weren't the chosen one of God, didn't have the oracles of God, etc. They are shown as being disobedient since they are not the people of God. The gospel came to them because of the rejection of Jesus by Israel, but instead of rejecting it like Israel and continuing in disobedience, they, who didn't have God as Israel did, accepted. So when called to obedience, they obeyed. (Obviously not all of them, but it was a group, not individuals). Through the obedience of the Gentiles, Israel will find mercy from God. Israel was made disobedient, and the Gentiles came out of disobedience, so that God can have mercy on all. At the end, there will be the church, saved, and the remnant of Israel, not saved. You will then have the remnant of Israel, like Paul, see, recognize, break down, and accept Jesus their King. He will, as mentioned in Matthew, be seen in Jerusalem again, after the remnant cries out "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."

I did not ask for a book report on the Bible. I asked what was Israel's purpose in redemption in that covenant relationship? And you brought a whole lot of irrelevancies into the mix.

 

[Arial]

That wasn't meant to mock. I should have left out the woohoo, but that would have lessened the intended impact. The point is that there are many different facets to choice/election.

Yes, but we are relating it to a specific thing. Was Israel's being a chosen people for a purpose in the process (unfolding in history)of redemption? Or is their being a chosen people an end in itself and the elect unto salvation of non-Israelites a separate or an inclusive process in redemption? IOW does the "elect" or God's choice of those to save through faith in Christ, and his calling the believer "his people" mean one thing for Israel and a different meaning for the non-Israelite?

So much for God's great redemption and reconciliation.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what I have said? I said "I don't believe no one in Israel is saved and never said I did." Are you skimming the posts?

Can you give your explanation of the 1/3rd of the population of Israel that will be purged and purified, next to the 2/3rds who at the same time are to die, and how that has already happened?

If you give the scripture reference I will do my best.

I forgot we don't have civil discourse here.

Try being more civil then. That is a two way street.

I disagree with your view of the millennium, not the existence of it. The point is to show you that you may have it in the wrong place. You may have misunderstood its place. Amillennialism came after pre-millennialism and it is because the premillennialists and St. Augustine had a falling out.

That is completely irrelevant and you have missed my point entirely. Respond to my posts as though I am presenting from my amillennial perspective instead of as if they were from some other millenial view.

In fact, the belief was that Jesus would return in the 4th century. And that was through math and other beliefs. (as God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, so Jesus would return at the end of 6000 years to bring sabbath rest to creation for 1000 years. Something like that.) Someone then calculated the time they believed the Earth was created, and then calculated 6000 (I believe, I haven't really researched it that in depth) and came up with the 4th century or thereabouts. For some reason 5500 years comes to mind. I think that is the approximate time they came up with for when Jesus was born, or when He died or something like that.) The chiliasts threw huge lavish parties since Jesus was on the way, and St. Augustine was all about austerity, so they had a major falling out.

And many people,including you concerning certain eschatological things, are still trying to interpret eschatology by calculating numbers, only using the increased data that we have today. What you have said should raise a red flag, cause an inner bell to go off, as to just how untrustworthy such methods are. Not to mention, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is about when. Israel will be saved, as a separate entity at the time, as the only other entity are believers already.

And there you have it. You cannot say that that is both no division in redemption and that it is a division in redemption. Two entities separate from each other is a division.

And the when is the point.

"Be ready." is the point according to Jesus. What did he mean by that?

 

[Mr GLee]

Yes, but we are relating it to a specific thing. Was Israel's being a chosen people for a purpose in the process (unfolding in history)of redemption? Or is their being a chosen people an end in itself and the elect unto salvation of non-Israelites a separate or inclusive process in redemption?

I would offer

It would seem some remained after Jacob non-redeemed Israel. the outward Jew.

Jesus said of his own dying flesh.(John 6) . . it profits for nothing , zero. Many disciples' walked away in un-belief (no faith or power to believe.)

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Romans 9:31But Israel, (as Jacob) which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[Arial]

Poof. So much for God's great redemption and reconciliation. And I was looking forward to it.

You have been all along arguing for your position and against mine (without discussing mine at all) with more than one false equivalency.

FE 1. If one does not believe in a premillennial view and a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, they do not believe that Israel is special to God or that it holds a unique and special place with God in redemption.

FE 2. If Israel is not everything, it is nothing.

FE 3. If one does not agree with your interpretation of the 70 weeks or Jacob's trouble they do not believe that Israel is special to od or that it holds a unique and special place with God in redemption.

FE 4. If one does not keep Israel (as a nation) separate from the church until after a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, they believe that God hates Israel, has abandoned them, and has no more dealings with them--- that they believe the church replaces Israel.

 

[Arial]

So take it from a history student. Sovereignty and dominion are synonymous.

A very selective history student but we are not talking about histories use of the terms. We are talking about God's sovereignty and dominion. "Ruling over" (dominion) the creation does not imply ownership----and neither does it in the natural world. Sovereignty is ownership. Dominion over or ruling over creation (or anything else) is an assignment. A duty. A job. And it is assigned by the Sovereign and must be done according to the commands of the sovereign. So they are not true and accurate synonyms, and if they are used as such it is sloppy.

Joseph was the number 2 man in Egypt, second only the Pharaoh who maintained his authority. As long as Joseph fulfilled his duties, the Pharaoh was happy.

So who was the sovereign in that situation?

 

[Arial]

So now I pasted what you said. You could have just said that isn't what you meant. I mean, you were building a pretty good postmillennial framework there

And you could have said "This is what I think you are saying." instead of telling me what I was saying.

What does "you were building a good postmillennial framework there" have to do with anything? When you change subjects, change paragraphs or iif you don't or if you do, put it into some kind of context.

 

[Mr GLee]

FE 1. If one does not believe in a premillennial view and a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, they do not believe that Israel is special to God or that it holds a unique and special place with God in redemption.

Specials or unique in which way? A Blessing or curse?

FE 2. If Israel is not everything, it is nothing.

Which Israel?

FE 3. If one does not agree with your interpretation of the 70 weeks or Jacob's trouble they do not believe that Israel is special to od or that it holds a unique and special place with God in redemption.

Jacobs trouble began when the veil used to represent nt the circummsion of the bloody husband Christ . The vail was rent they was no Jewish man siting in the abomination of desolation temple made with hands a human will . when he walked ut for the last time in mathew 2 ,He declaed it is desolate .No signs were given to wonder doubt, wonder, wonder after.

Believers have prophecy .No need to wonder, wonder wonder. according to the king of lying signs to wonder as if they were true prophecy .Lucifer

God is not a dying Jewish man as King of kings When the vail was rent Satan fell (Revaltion 20 :3) He could no longer deceive all the nations of the world God is a Jewish man as King of kings He will be released at the end of the age to deceive the same way.

Makes me wonder when he comes will he find faith (the power of God to believe) or just lying sign to wonder, wonder . marvel, doubt, wonder after after in Limbo purgatory how low can you go. . . limbo land .

 

[Mr GLee]

Can you give your explanation of the 1/3rd of the population of Israel that will be purged and purified, next to the 2/3rds who at the same time are to die, and how that has already happened?

I would offer looking at that parable 2/3 represent 666 .the lost 1/3 .333 represents the believers

Revelation 8:6-8King James Version6 And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound. The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up. And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

 

[TMSO]

I did not ask for a book report on the Bible. I asked what was Israel's purpose in redemption in that covenant relationship? And you brought a whole lot of irrelevancies into the mix.

I took my time. Israel has no purpose in redemption, God does. Israel was a vehicle, and continues to be a vehicle, but in this case, one that will result in God's glory. God didn't choose Israel as some side gig and then threw them away.

 

[TMSO]

Yes, but we are relating it to a specific thing. Was Israel's being a chosen people for a purpose in the process (unfolding in history)of redemption? Or is their being a chosen people an end in itself and the elect unto salvation of non-Israelites a separate or an inclusive process in redemption? IOW does the "elect" or God's choice of those to save through faith in Christ, and his calling the believer "his people" mean one thing for Israel and a different meaning for the non-Israelite?

Is there a reason that the idea that God may have His own plan as far as timing and how Israel is saved seems to greatly upset you. If you want to see a difference of manner in salvation, look at Cornelius and company, and then look at Saul. Would you say that they got saved in the same manner? I would say yes, except that Paul's salvation was much more direct. We are regenerated. Saul was regenerated when Jesus knocked him down and then point blank told him that he was attacking God's people. Why would that be regenerating? Paul's whole life, as he said, was about God. He believed in with his full heart that Jesus was an enemy of God. His whole mind, his whole world was transformed by Jesus revelation. He was broken. God would basically tell him he was dead, here's a new name for your new life. If you read in Zechariah, which I believe is an explanation of what happens, Jesus will go to Jerusalem and present Himself to His people and they will accept Him. They will recognize Him. Why? Regeneration. God Himself lifts the blindness and hardness from Israel, and they recognize them who they pierced, and they, like Paul are broken down. It says they will mourn for him as one mourn's for an only child. Like Paul, they will be saved. It's different in only that God is reconciling with His chosen people of promise, as He promised.

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what I have said? I said "I don't believe no one in Israel is saved and never said I did." Are you skimming the posts?

I speak of the end. The final redemption of the elect of Israel, which you keep saying no to.

If you give the scripture reference I will do my best.

Zechariah 13, however, consider 12-14 together.
"
“Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,
And against the man, My Associate,”
Declares the Lord of hosts.
“Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered;
And I will turn My hand [d]against the little ones.
8 “It will come about in all the land,”
Declares the Lord,
“That two parts in it will be cut off and perish;
But the third will be left in it.
9 “And I will bring the third part through the fire,
Refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them;
I will say, ‘They are My people,’
And they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’”

Try being more civil then. That is a two way street.

It is. I keep getting hit as I cross...

That is completely irrelevant and you have missed my point entirely. Respond to my posts as though I am presenting from my amillennial perspective instead of as if they were from some other millenial view.

And many people,including you concerning certain eschatological things, are still trying to interpret eschatology by calculating numbers, only using the increased data that we have today. What you have said should raise a red flag, cause an inner bell to go off, as to just how untrustworthy such methods are. Not to mention, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

I look at prophecy by numbers, because there are plenty of prophecies where there are directly observable parts. Those parts have proven to be exactly true. One of the better/best examples is Joseph's interpretation of the prophetic dreams of the baker and the taste tester. Not to mention Joseph and the famine. I don't follow those who put numbers on things, because Jesus said we can't know. However, He did say we can recognize the season by the parable of the fig tree. One of the things that Jesus said would come to pass before "this generation" passes away, is His second coming and the gathering of all the elect. If that did not happen in 70 AD (I feel that is kind of obvious), then it must speak to a different time and event. I pointed out how Luke picked different questions and answers then Matthew did, which had Jesus say the courtyard of the temple would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles is complete. How does that mesh with Matthew's discourse?

And there you have it. You cannot say that that is both no division in redemption and that it is a division in redemption. Two entities separate from each other is a division.

No it is not a division. If a Norwegian and a German eat breakfast, is that a division in breakfast? Two entities separate from each other. Since it is different, can you explain the different effects breakfast will have on each? There is no division in redemption. There are two entities. the path of salvation is at the divide. Paul said that the Jews are your enemies for the sake of the gospel. There is a division between the two. However, it isn't Gentile and Jew, it is church and Israel. There are Jews in the church. Again, there is no difference in redemption except for WHEN the reconciliation/redemption of the remnant in Israel takes place. How you see that as a division in redemption is beyond me. Is it a division in breakfast if the Norwegian eats at 7 and the German eats at 9? It's still breakfast. It still serves the exact same purpose, to break the fast. In fact, according to history, breakfast can occur at any time of the day, because it is just the meal that breaks the fast since dinner/supper. Or if you fast for days on end, that first meal is breakfast.

"Be ready." is the point according to Jesus. What did he mean by that?

The last parable in Matthew 24. Don't be the foolish servant who partied away the time, and then was caught off guard by the return of the master. What happens if the world as a whole is told when Jesus will return? They will party hard to the last possible moment, then clean up house. What if everyone were told when they would die? Party hearty, for we can get saved right before we can die. Those things are not true, however, since when have you know that to stop people?

 

[TMSO]

You have been all along arguing for your position and against mine (without discussing mine at all) with more than one false equivalency.

FE 1. If one does not believe in a premillennial view and a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, they do not believe that Israel is special to God or that it holds a unique and special place with God in redemption.

That has been my experience. The unique and special place with God in redemption is solely connected to their unique relationship with God as the chosen people of God through whom the Law came. And it continues on to the end according to Paul. They reject, the Gentiles accept, and then God saves the rest of the elect of Israel. Why? For the sake of His great name, and for mercy. He has bound all in disobedience so that he may show mercy to all. Do you believe God stops at Israel? Uniquely hated by God?

FE 2. If Israel is not everything, it is nothing.

That is not true at all. Israel is not everything, however, Israel is a big part. Why? The promises God made to the forefathers. Even God is clear on that. God is faithful, no matter what those replacement theology people say.

FE 3. If one does not agree with your interpretation of the 70 weeks or Jacob's trouble they do not believe that Israel is special to od or that it holds a unique and special place with God in redemption.

It just means that they missed some things in the prophecy. There is a break at the end of the 69th week. That has been seen even by the ECFs. They mention it, however, they disagreed on how long it was, or what it meant in the long run. Does knowledge increase the further from God we get, or decrease? There is good reason to consider the early church fathers. Some of them knew the disciples, or knew people who knew the disiples and talked to them about it. Polycarp was John the apostles disciple, and he was a premillennialist, as were his students. Eusebius records that. Ignatius was also a disciple of John the apostle, and also a premillennialist. Irenaeus spoke to people who knew John in doing research on Revelation. He was clear that the writing of the book was within their lifetime. That is, while John had already passed on, there were people who knew and spoke with John, which he spoke with. The big topic of the day was the name of the beast, which Irenaeus says John never told anyone. Speculation could be that that person was not yet alive, so there was no name for John to give that anyone would recognize.

FE 4. If one does not keep Israel (as a nation) separate from the church until after a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth, they believe that God hates Israel, has abandoned them, and has no more dealings with them--- that they believe the church replaces Israel.

You are missing the point. I haven't argued against amillennialism yet, unless replacing the Israel with the church is part of amillennialism. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a proper view of eschatology without dealing with Israel first. The reason is that eschatology has its primary source in Israel and the Old Testament. So many prophecies for eschatology. Jesus expanded on them. He fleshed it out. Not only is Israel going to go through war and hard times, the temple is going to be destroyed. He added to it. But each time He said, but the time isn't here yet. I can't help but seeing large chunks of this as multi-fulfillment prophecy. Or prophecy that looks like it related to one thing when it actually didn't. I can't line up Matthew with Luke because the disciples asked different questions, and Jesus provided differing answers. The court of the temple will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. That is different then, immediately afterwards the Son returns.

I put empahsis on Israel, because terms of eschatology are couched in Israel for whatever reason. (Olivet discourse, Old testament, etc.) I am also a hopeless romantic, and the plans God has for Israel, being His chosen people, from what I see is incredible. Prodigal son incredible. While some of the church are the elder son upset the Father took his son back in.

 

[TMSO]

A very selective history student but we are not talking about histories use of the terms. We are talking about God's sovereignty and dominion. "Ruling over" (dominion) the creation does not imply ownership----and neither does it in the natural world. Sovereignty is ownership. Dominion over or ruling over creation (or anything else) is an assignment. A duty. A job. And it is assigned by the Sovereign and must be done according to the commands of the sovereign. So they are not true and accurate synonyms, and if they are used as such it is sloppy.

Sovereignty is supreme power and authority, nothing else. Ownership is ownership, though it does confer sovereignty. Though the owner could give something to someone else to look over, in which case, outside of the owner, that person has sovereignty. Again I Corinthians 15 speaks to that. The one who gave that right to the Son is excepted from that supreme authority.

So who was the sovereign in that situation?

To be honest, I would only speak of Adam in terms of dominion, because God didn't make Adam a king, or other kind of leader. If God had made Adam some kind of king, then Adam would have been sovereign, with only God excepted from that, as the one who gave that power to Adam.

 

[TMSO]

And you could have said "This is what I think you are saying." instead of telling me what I was saying.

What does "you were building a good postmillennial framework there" have to do with anything? When you change subjects, change paragraphs or iif you don't or if you do, put it into some kind of context.

Civil discussion. Use thought. I would expect you to say something about not believing the church is to establish God's kingdom on Earth. I don't know all about postmillennialism, but enough. The original posting of God giving the land to the peopel to come (church) is what I was hinting at with the postmillennialism line.

 

[TMSO]

I would offer looking at that parable 2/3 represent 666 .the lost 1/3 .333 represents the believers

Revelation 8:6-8King James Version6 And the seven angels which had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound. The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up. And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

The 2/3rds points to those who will die... unsaved, they will perish as it says. The 1/3 are the elect whom God will bring through blood a fire, purge (some translations say purge) and purify them, testing them as gold. I believe this point to a future event.

 

[Arial]

I took my time. Israel has no purpose in redemption, God does. Israel was a vehicle, and continues to be a vehicle, but in this case, one that will result in God's glory. God didn't choose Israel as some side gig and then threw them away.

You still haven't been able to answer the question and it is quite simple to do in just one to three sentences.

 

[Arial]

Civil discussion. Use thought. I would expect you to say something about not believing the church is to establish God's kingdom on Earth. I don't know all about postmillennialism, but enough. The original posting of God giving the land to the peopel to come (church) is what I was hinting at with the postmillennialism line.

I don't think that you have yet grasped that when I say all the land I mean the whole earth. You continue to phrase my statement of the land, and I think in your thought that always means the geographic land of Israel only. And I think you always separate the church and Israel as two separate entities even if the other poster does not do that. That is why you are never able to understand what they are saying and argue non stop against a situation that does not exist. You never consider my statements as coming from my view of the millennium being this age (the time between the two advents) and therefore it is his return in judgement and restoration that is the consummation of redemption and the restoration the receiving of our full inheritance. You never consider that when I say "church" I mean all believers no matter where they live or their ethnicity or social status, the then living and the resurrected dead.

I don't see you changing that tendency any time soon so I am done with the discussion.

 

[Arial]

Sovereignty is supreme power and authority, nothing else. Ownership is ownership, though it does confer sovereignty. Though the owner could give something to someone else to look over, in which case, outside of the owner, that person has sovereignty. Again I Corinthians 15 speaks to that. The one who gave that right to the Son is excepted from that supreme authority.

To be honest, I would only speak of Adam in terms of dominion, because God didn't make Adam a king, or other kind of leader. If God had made Adam some kind of king, then Adam would have been sovereign, with only God excepted from that, as the one who gave that power to Adam.

 

[Mr GLee]

Sovereignty is supreme power and authority, nothing else. Ownership is ownership, though it does confer sovereignty. Though the owner could give something to someone else to look over, in which case, outside of the owner, that person has sovereignty. Again I Corinthians 15 speaks to that. The one who gave that right to the Son is excepted from that supreme authority.

To be honest, I would only speak of Adam in terms of dominion, because God didn't make Adam a king, or other kind of leader. If God had made Adam some kind of king, then Adam would have been sovereign, with only God excepted from that, as the one who gave that power to Adam.

I would offer.

It would seem Adam gave over the dominion be fruitful and multiply to the King of lying wonders, to wonder, wonder, marvel after as if true prophecy

From Genesis 1:26 God used the word two . . ."us" to represent the gospel . (Elohim) Christ in us .

In the new heavens and earth mankind will literally become one the bride married to Christ the husband. Like with Timothy signified as the chaste virgin bride married to Christ

Setting up the priesthood of believers (apostles sent with prophecy ) according to Exodus 7 .

Moses signified as the father not seen and Aaron as member of the bride. The preachers of the word .Sends them out two by two

Exodus 7King James Version And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.

Adam as Moses heard the loving commandment. Do not eat from the hidden tree . and was to relay the prophesy to Eve .

Lucifer the glory. . thief in the night knowing she did not hear the law "do not eat" violated the law of faith adding. . four words ."Neither shall you touch" .making sola scriptura without effect.

Satan's weapon of warfare the anxious anticipation of hope of the flesh . . drawing them to see the hidden mystery as a parable . When the lust of the eye took over both believed the false prophecy. "neither shall you touch". Touching and not dying they ate the whole false gospel

The two building blocks make up lustful false pride

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world

Adam failed to protect . The new Adam is protecting washing his new bride with the water of the word . Doctrines that fall like rain 24/7

Ephesians 5:25-26King James VersionHusbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,