So, Israel right or wrong is not advocated. But, yes, I think there are those who seek to influence foreign policy based on the Bible. That is not necessarily wrong, but care is needed. And the president of the US is expected to keep his promise to upholding the Constitution. If that conflicts with his values - well, either he fails his promise or he fails his values.
So yeah, errors can come from applying the dispensational idea without balance - but those churches that were not dispensational also fell into error due to lack of balance - anti semitism. In the past, anyway - today, off hand I dont know. You know - Jews as Christ killers, that type of thing.
Ok, i figured you were into that because it matches what you been saying, and there is different types of it. I also don't see how any Christian can be anti-semitic since its basically a Jewish text they follow You would think - but unfortunately.....(we still have our sinful nature seeking to do its thing even after faith in Christ). Of course, not everyone belong to denomination is really a Christian. A particular problem (I think) with having a national church. So, that might be part of where that came from. |
|
|
|
|
So, Israel right or wrong is not advocated. But, yes, I think there are those who seek to influence foreign policy based on the Bible. That is not necessarily wrong, but care is needed. And the president of the US is expected to keep his promise to upholding the Constitution. If that conflicts with his values - well, either he fails his promise or he fails his values.
So yeah, errors can come from applying the dispensational idea without balance - but those churches that were not dispensational also fell into error due to lack of balance - anti semitism. In the past, anyway - today, off hand I dont know. You know - Jews as Christ killers, that type of thing.
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind - there are the various prophecies, and then there is stringing them together in some sort of time line.
The latter for sure is not something fixed in my mind. The former are not always clear either, but some are very clear.
So, yes, I see a temple being rebuilt, that will be violated by someone who makes Hitler look like a boy scout. There is the passage you mention in Matt, there is the book of Daniel, there is 2 Thessalonians, etc.
Zech 14 shows the Jews turning to Jesus as he returns. So, if one means by Christian simply a believer in Jesus, yes. The number grows even now, including in Israel.
But, I believe alot of the conversion happens after the rapture. So, Gentiles and Jews beleiving in Jesus afterwards - something different.
but according to dispensationalism thinking (which i take it describes you) the nation of Israel itself will become a Christian nation, and it can be something we witness. Its something that finds its way into politics because some may think they have the calling to make this come about. Therefore politicians regardless if they really believe it or not will say they do for the voting block. I'm not trying to change the subject of the thread, and whether my interpretation as opposed to yours (or what you read) is correct,or not, it could matter. It could matter because if the dispensationalists are wrong they are influencing foreign policy, and in a way that takes away the objectiveness needed when forming a foreign policy. That alone could suggest its not Biblical because it advances the idea that Israel doesn't stand alone, assuming these believers feel they have a role in helping them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism Nah, this is interesting, and actually related. You bring up a legitamate concern. The dispensational approach has its merits, and the churches I have attended have taken that approach to one degree or the other. And yes, they so see Israel becoming a nation as part of that. Nor would I say there is a problem with acting with a view towards prophecy - as long as the end does not justify the means. I think what Daniel did is valid. He sees that the number of years of exile for his people are soon to be over, and he starts praying about it. No indication that he goes talk to the king about it. But, Nehemiah actually gets help from the king (a latter one) in help restoring Israel. There were objections by others regarding this, interestingly. But both men were working with the known will of God - and, Nehemiah did not gloss over Israel's sins just because of prophecy. (Glad I saved this part - certain set of key strokes and I lose what I am typing). |
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind - there are the various prophecies, and then there is stringing them together in some sort of time line.
The latter for sure is not something fixed in my mind. The former are not always clear either, but some are very clear.
So, yes, I see a temple being rebuilt, that will be violated by someone who makes Hitler look like a boy scout. There is the passage you mention in Matt, there is the book of Daniel, there is 2 Thessalonians, etc.
Zech 14 shows the Jews turning to Jesus as he returns. So, if one means by Christian simply a believer in Jesus, yes. The number grows even now, including in Israel.
But, I believe alot of the conversion happens after the rapture. So, Gentiles and Jews beleiving in Jesus afterwards - something different.
|
|
|
|
As an aside, but as I see similarities (politically), I like the idea of both Israel and the Kurds having their own country over there. Unfortunately, the Kurds did not get it. Both groups seem to have a more steady influence than other nation or groups of people over there - the Kurds having a quasi type of nation till recently in that part of Iraq. But, Iraq, Iran and Turkey do not wish to see, I think, an independent Kurdistan (?).
I don't see how we need them more than they need us. Just to get a better idea, in brief do you think Israel as a nation becomes Christian? What about a new temple? and the abomination of desolation stands in the Holy place, is that the temple to be built or something else? I don't mean that as it is usually meant. As in some sort of trade agreement or military alliance. Rather, I am referring to the below passage from Genesis 12. I think the US has been blessed in supporting the Jews, both here in the US, and in supporting them having a nation. Which is not to mean supporting them in whatever they do, of course. But, we do not persecute them. They have had freedom here that was many times missing in Europe at various times. We have been, overall, during our history, a haven. But God will take care of Israel with or without us. 1 Now Jehovah said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee: 2 and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make they name great; and be thou a blessing; 3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. |
|
|
|
|
As an aside, but as I see similarities (politically), I like the idea of both Israel and the Kurds having their own country over there. Unfortunately, the Kurds did not get it. Both groups seem to have a more steady influence than other nation or groups of people over there - the Kurds having a quasi type of nation till recently in that part of Iraq. But, Iraq, Iran and Turkey do not wish to see, I think, an independent Kurdistan (?).
|
|
|
|
|
Which will involve repentance on their part - which is sorely needed.
But, here in the religious forum, I thought it be good to have such a thread for future reference, as mentioned due to when it happens, it will be a clear testimony to the Creator (and folks will still find reason to not see that - Bible has many examples of that).
But also as a reference in case the subject does come up elsewhere in the forum.
|
|
|
|
If you think i am dismissing the Old testament your mistaken. Your first sentence contradicts itself if you think the old and new Testaments aren't exactly what it implies, which is old things and new things. That doesn't mean they don't speak about the same principles, as the Bible puts it "a shadow of things to come". If national Israel really would be surrounded, with only God to save it at the last instance, why do politicians think, and promote, for political reasons that we should defend Israel at all costs? Why does Israel have allies even in the Arab world who would encourage (even secretly) them to do what they think must be done? I would suggest you don't let influence you any Bible study that would promote a political motive in regard to Israel .
You are assuming politicians are doing what they are doing for reasons of prophecy? Most of them don't even buy into it. They all have various reasons for why they do what they do. This thread is just about passages regarding a future Israel is yet to see - not what to do about current events that do not mirror yet the events in those passages. For those that witness that day when God (and God alone) does deliver Israel, it will only be through willful ignorance that one refuses to acknowledge that God exists. Actually looking over the thread it looks like the second time i mentioned politics......oh well Ok, my apologies for misunderstanding. I thought you were thinking my thread here had a political motive. Which I don't think is an issue as far as the Free Speech board, but, was not my intent. I have been asked on it in the political forum, what with the several threads on Israel (including mine) and the potential for war. I have not advocated for war against Iran (though I think folks underestimate Iran's danger) since I don't know really what the overall outcome would be. But, I have said my thoughts there that my support of Israel is not due to some belief in an apocolyptic end. In fact, in the past, due to what the Bible teaches, I have stated that we probably need them more than we need us, and that God will take care of them, as you mention above. |
|
|
|
If you think i am dismissing the Old testament your mistaken. Your first sentence contradicts itself if you think the old and new Testaments aren't exactly what it implies, which is old things and new things. That doesn't mean they don't speak about the same principles, as the Bible puts it "a shadow of things to come". If national Israel really would be surrounded, with only God to save it at the last instance, why do politicians think, and promote, for political reasons that we should defend Israel at all costs? Why does Israel have allies even in the Arab world who would encourage (even secretly) them to do what they think must be done? I would suggest you don't let influence you any Bible study that would promote a political motive in regard to Israel .
You are assuming politicians are doing what they are doing for reasons of prophecy? Most of them don't even buy into it. They all have various reasons for why they do what they do. This thread is just about passages regarding a future Israel is yet to see - not what to do about current events that do not mirror yet the events in those passages. For those that witness that day when God (and God alone) does deliver Israel, it will only be through willful ignorance that one refuses to acknowledge that God exists. |
|
|
|
|
Well, the promises that God has fulfilled from the OT were physically, not spiritual, regarding the nation of Israel (and the advent of the Messiah, etc), so I am not sure why it would be any different going forward.
We will have a physical fulfillment of Jesus' return, judgement, etc.
I know you mentioned you rather not involve the OT, but, that is the primary source, and it is what Revelation builds on.
|
|
|
|
How is the U.S. different from Argentina?
How about in every possible imaginable way? The dollar is the reserve currency. People buy our debt with 0% real return. And people do so in large quantities. with the US massaging many of their fiscal figures and stats most of the time (usually debt and annually adjusted monthly gdp figures), plus a drop in the strength of € to $ now 1.33, and an emerging housing bubble, the forecast is a bit grim for the next few years ahead Republicans refuse to undo the the Bush tax cuts which are largely responsible for our budget deficits as government spending as a percentage of GPD is about what it was under Reagan. yeah sure. How much of a percentage of the Deficit has come since 2008? Which by the way had a Democrat House and Senate? Even before Obama took over? your pathetic attempt to try and blame everyone else but Obama is amusing. You think Obama must be the bestest strongest president evar!! to be able to pass obamacare, but "those damned republicans" are keeping him from doing anything about the 99.8% increase in govt debt since he took office. If you wanted to be honest about it you'd look at deficit changes, not debt changes. and you show your ignorance by trying to say "FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CONSTITUTION" by that alone you show your stupidity. The whole constitution is one document; and it all has to be taken into consideration. But you want to claim otherwise so that you can twist it to your own strange agenda. Your stupid crap about congress making no laws about anything ever is such total typical libtard stupidity its hilarious. You want to make the world the way you want it and anything that gets in the way is 'wrong' or 'misinterpreted' etc. of course you want to go that way; not admit that most of the debt we have right now came from your messiah Obama. Do you think "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" means "congress shall make no laws (period)" or "congress shall make no laws about religion"? At first you said the former, now you seem to be backpedaling. |
|
|
|
|
Debit has grown, you might ask the SENATE. Four annual Budgets were not passed, do remember the law that was also changed. You might take the time to ask what the motive is or was about the budget. Do remember that the budgit was stopped in the Senate, Democrate.
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
CLEARLY the original intent of the Founding Fathers was that a) there would be no state religion as was status quo everywhere else at that time b) no ones religion would be controlled or bothered or interfered with in any way c) now human sacrifice and such were clearly against OTHER laws and would not be considered religion connected d) when you consider how many of them constantly made some reference to god in just about everything they did it is also clear that there was no intent to remove the 10 commandments from courtrooms, prohibit mangers and so on in public squares, etc. sadly the COURTS have proceeded to do what the Founding Fathers made sure the CONGRESS could not do. That is why I would word it this way "Congress shall make no laws; and the Courts shall make no rulings" Anything else would be left up to the STATES. NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS Only a totally ignorant moron would not understand that the Founding Fathers meant all these issues were meant to be settled by the STATES individually their NIGHTMARE was a powerful federal government- which is what we have now. I'm asking a very specific question. Those words about making no law are within the context of the first amendment ONLY. Do you disagree with that? Forget everything else in the constitution for a moment. Do you disagree that those words are meant for the context of the first amendment? In essence, you appear to be saying congress shall make no laws about anything ever. I need to know if that's what you actually mean. |
|
|
|
Obama has cut spending, had to deal with Bush’s mess, does not have the SS surplus that Reagan, Bush and Bush used to hide much of their record deficits and much of Obama’s deficit is the caused by the shortage in the SS fund. Then Obama has had to deal with Republicans’ promise to screw up everything until we get rid of the Black President.
So get this through your heads. The Republicans are the one who waste money, they increase welfare (much of it is for the rich) and even with their record tax increases they set record deficits.
Good lord, why would you vote for a Republican?
They voted republican because Bush started two wars AND cut taxes at the same time, and they thought this was a grand idea. That is the conservative's idea of sound fiscal policy. When asked specifically what items he disagreed with on the Tea Party platform and why he feared them the above is his response. Totally incapable of any intelligent debate or to even stand up and defend his claims. But no one expected you to actually debate your claims or defend your stance because we all know that would take a few more brain cells that you posses. |
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that "congress shall make no law" has a full stop after it? As in congress shall actually make no laws, rather than not making laws in reference to the context of the first amendment?
|
|
|
|
I used to think you were more intelligent than this, but you're obviously a troll. Can you offer proof of this 'record' pace? Try this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/Oh, and remember the 'Grand Bargain'? The GOP refused to raise taxes as part of the compromise. |
|
|
|
There can't be 2 Holy nations , either it means the new nation or the old.
I would rather stick to this theme rather then go off into old Testament prophesies about today's Israel because honestly its confusing. The thing is if its talking about future events it could mean what's talked about by John in his revelation, or things that have happened already to Israel
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
No, I am not saying there are currently two holy nations. The verses in 1 Thessalonians 4 (and 1Corinthians 15) about what is termed the rapture - when do you think this will happen? 13 But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. After the things talked about in Matt 24 verses 1-31, also read peter 3;10 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. So, you believe the church will be going through the tribulation? Anyway, either way, once gone, there is no longer the concern about two holy nations at the same time, yes? The nation comes together, and in time, becomes spiritually alive again (culminating in Zech 14). |
|
|
|
There can't be 2 Holy nations , either it means the new nation or the old.
I would rather stick to this theme rather then go off into old Testament prophesies about today's Israel because honestly its confusing. The thing is if its talking about future events it could mean what's talked about by John in his revelation, or things that have happened already to Israel
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
No, I am not saying there are currently two holy nations. The verses in 1 Thessalonians 4 (and 1Corinthians 15) about what is termed the rapture - when do you think this will happen? 13 But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that fall asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. |
|
|
|
|
There is no disagreement there about the calling out of Gentiles there, but, that is not saying either that God is done with Israel as a nation in the future. Does not say he is thus suspending the OT prophecies yet to be fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
When the young nation of Israel came out of Egypt, God called that nation "my son" in Exodus 4:22. When the baby Jesus came out of Egypt, God said, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." Matthew 2:15.
So, we have a passage in Exodus that is literally referring to the nation of Israel as my son, but is also prophetically referring to Jesus.
Is that what you mean there, so far?
There is next to no evidence that the Jews were ever in servitude in Egypt. And absolutely none that Moses existed at all, let alone he picked up the ten commandments. the question is not whether the Bible is the Word of God, but what it is teaching.To your point, there is no evidence contrary to what the Bible records as history. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
