Whatever. Maybe you should go on a mission to Israel and try to convert some Jews to Christ .
God was done with Israel in AD 70. Note the haulocist is not 8n the Bible.
Ten Tribes of Israel - Are You Among Their Number?
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
- Status
God was done with Israel in AD 70. Note the haulocist is not 8n the Bible.
God was never "done" with Israel. That's a rudiment of those who subscribe to "replacement theology."
Harriet, I am Israeli, and to say what you stated is an attempt at a slap in the face of a nation of which you seem to know nothing about. Revelation, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark and Luke, et al, they ALL speak of the Lord once again turning His fixated gaze upon Israel to fulfill His promises and covenant.
I'm not going to argue this with you because it's settled in scripture. The problem is those who subjectively shift the biblical time tables about in order to try and force scripture into conformity to the replacement theology framework. Preterism is one such system of thought and belief that adheres to replacement theology.
I don't mean to apply the sting of any slap to those who adhere to replacement theology and preterism. My being of Israeli dissent, and hearing this kind of stuff spouted about that is so opposed to what we can read in scripture, no. What we all DO know is that God is right and truthful, and mankind is a body of liars by comparison.
Amen.
MM
Well, God honored the 12 Tribes in the New Covenant... the new heaven and earth in Rev. 22, for His name sake.
God destroyed that evil generation of Israel who rejected their Messiah.
only the believing Jews escaped and fled beyond the mountains, as the Lord warned in Matt. 24.
I could go on bc I am equipped to debate any futurist. Something that you hide behind in any debate bc we get silenced on a few websites
So, I care about a clear future. Not crazy fiction about some future end times
.
End times came for Israel. The old Jerusalem made way for the new covenant.
Well, informationally speaking, Israel was already long since taken captive, killed or dispersed all across the earth by 722 BC by the Assyrians...that's before Christ, so that alone renders the replacement theology system of thought null and void when we dare consider the implications for believing otherwise. Judah was what was left that actively rejected the Messiah, not all of Israel.
The question, then, is where do we read any prophet after 722 BC saying a peep about Israel (the northern ten tribes allegedly lost, which they were not) no longer being overseen and known by Yah through the ages, and therefore abandoned? (crickets)
Again, conversationally speaking, replacement theology ends up being understood and seen for the bankrupt assumption that it is. Zechariah 12-14 gives to us a round of visions and substance to the fact that the Lord will indeed, once again, begin dealing with His chosen people Israel...either that, or Ezekiel was completely brainwashed by his own creativity when he, for example, penned about that valley of dry bones in chapter 37, coupled together with so many other contexts scattered throughout all of scripture.
So, the remaining, one leg replacement theology is left teetering upon, while trying to balance itself in the torrential winds of facts that render it incapable of standing on its own any longer, is simply wrong. The subjective interpretation of key passages ripped from their context while applying eisegetical rules of engagement, and thus making use of all the white space around the black and red lettering in scripture, I have to say that my rejection of that system of assumptive injections is simply based upon the utterly unacceptable premises upon which it is built.
MM
Folks, for starters, please read Ezekial 37. In there you will see the prophecy of the two sticks (Israel (Ephraim) and Judah) brought together into one stick, gathered together as ONE nation, and their becoming once again the means by which the Lord continues His fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham.
The God spoken of in our Bibles is consistent, reliable, and utterly solid in His words, in His meaning, and His resolve for fulfilling ALL that He set out to do.
Contrary to the god-image portraiture painted by the replacement theology camp of a god that makes mistakes and casts aside entire nations He had spent so much of His efforts with through the ages, the God of the Bible is One who doesn't fit into the man-shaped and sized box of constraints, limitations and imperfections we see in replacement theology and cultic systems of thought.
The God we see in scripture is Mighty, Glorious, Perfect, Holy, and infinitely Majestic in ALL that He does.
The portrait of ficklness painted by various premises and conclusions that lead others into envisioning a god far less than the God we read about in scriptures, that's one of many things Paul of Tarsus warned that we watch for and defend our minds against.
MM
The God spoken of in our Bibles is consistent, reliable, and utterly solid in His words, in His meaning, and His resolve for fulfilling ALL that He set out to do.
Contrary to the god-image portraiture painted by the replacement theology camp of a god that makes mistakes and casts aside entire nations He had spent so much of His efforts with through the ages, the God of the Bible is One who doesn't fit into the man-shaped and sized box of constraints, limitations and imperfections we see in replacement theology and cultic systems of thought.
The God we see in scripture is Mighty, Glorious, Perfect, Holy, and infinitely Majestic in ALL that He does.
The portrait of ficklness painted by various premises and conclusions that lead others into envisioning a god far less than the God we read about in scriptures, that's one of many things Paul of Tarsus warned that we watch for and defend our minds against.
MM
Couldn't even vaguely understand your whole post.
God didn't lose anything or anyone.
He simply abandoned the tribes just as they abandoned him to worship other gods.
Generally speaking (for everyone here, and speaking to no individual in particular), it's always good practice to state more than just a conclusion. Expecting any conclusion statement to be believed by others involves providing some substance for backing.
In other words, our conclusions need to be supported by reasonable premises that others may check out for themselves to see if there's any substance to the stated conclusion. That's just good practice not only in the circles of higher, intellectual discussions and debate, but also a common courtesy to others if one dares expect their conclusion to be taken seriously, and therefore acceptable. Otherwise, the conclusion statement is nothing but a mere opinion that has every appearance of irrationality and emotive bias.
That concludes today's PSA (Public Service Announcement). Now, back to our regularly scheduled program....
MM
In other words, our conclusions need to be supported by reasonable premises that others may check out for themselves to see if there's any substance to the stated conclusion. That's just good practice not only in the circles of higher, intellectual discussions and debate, but also a common courtesy to others if one dares expect their conclusion to be taken seriously, and therefore acceptable. Otherwise, the conclusion statement is nothing but a mere opinion that has every appearance of irrationality and emotive bias.
That concludes today's PSA (Public Service Announcement). Now, back to our regularly scheduled program....
MM
All twisted words to me. "our" conclusions" are not based on prophecies. Prophecies ended in AD70. Christ came spiritually figuratively physically in the clouds above Jerusalem. Take the time to read Roman history and Josephus in those days because you ignore that and just want to make something out of Revelation, a book you seem to have no knowledge of interpreting. Daniel said the scroll was for the end times. Something John had the whole vision of prophecy in Revelation. The "end times" came for the old covenant Israel.Generally speaking (for everyone here, and speaking to no individual in particular), it's always good practice to state more than just a conclusion. Expecting any conclusion statement to be believed by others involves providing some substance for backing.
In other words, our conclusions need to be supported by reasonable premises that others may check out for themselves to see if there's any substance to the stated conclusion. That's just good practice not only in the circles of higher, intellectual discussions and debate, but also a common courtesy to others if one dares expect their conclusion to be taken seriously, and therefore acceptable. Otherwise, the conclusion statement is nothing but a mere opinion that has every appearance of irrationality and emotive bias.
That concludes today's PSA (Public Service Announcement). Now, back to our regularly scheduled program....
MM
It's so plain to see if you only admit you are brainwashed by modern times . I did not grow up nor was exposed to any preacher, priest or anyone telling me Jesus was still coming!
Maybe it's bc I would hold them to saying there's gonna be actual, in reality, a literal meaning to Christ REALLY coming on a white horse , etc.
Ask me and I'll tell you what is literal in Revelation bc you need to identify that in order to know what the figurative language means.
Trouble is, you forget about Jesus coming the 1st time. Then you miss all the real blessings when you try to pull Him down from Heaven again!
Not going to happen. Doesn't need to happen either bc He already made the necessary changes for the world through the Gospel.
Harriet, I'm not going to engage further about this conversation with someone who subscribes to ad hominem rather than to simply discuss and address the topic itself. Attacking another person rather than the topic itself...that's just not productive.
You're out-classed here, Harriet, which is why I refuse to stoop to the levels I'm seeing in the above response from you. Josephus? He was a historian writing from a purely human perspective. Scripture is God-inspired. THAT is the appeal that I make in my address of topics. I'm saying this for the benefit of all others here. We ALL can learn things from each other, and do so in a productive and wholesome environment without being aggressive toward any other here. We all should extend that common courtesy toward one another.
If you're willing to converse strictly on the basis of the topic itself rather than try to attack my character and/or state of mind simply because we disagree, then great. If not, then I bid you best wishes with others more willing to put up with such.
MM
Hello Musicmaster;
Seriously, is there a way to research our family and the Ten Tribes of Israel, other than ancestry.com?
Because if there is I'm sure this source will provide more information that will help us in our search of the promise.
The Ten Tribes' starting point had to expand beyond Israel and somewhere along the way it will have crossed the path of all our family's history.
This may be off track in this topic but as God continues to fulfill the promises made to Abraham will not be limited to a select few generations but by His design, His bringing together the whole Body as One and One Nation.
God bless you, brother and thank your for sharing.
You know, Bob, there is much genealogy out there not entered into any database. Many families still retain their genealogical data in private records. As you know, the ten tribes were scattered across the earth in ancient times, intermixing with other people's these nearly three thousand years since they were dispersed in about 722 BC. The Lord, as you know, has tracked them and their descendants perfectly, thus every bone in that valley accounted for that He will one day raise back up to life. Also, given the intermixing, it would be near impossible to track any one lineage.
There are stories among the remnant of some from the ten tribes taking to ships to escape the Assyrians' attack. Many were taken captive, and utilized to raise crops, and even to breed and raise up superior horses for the northern and eastern kingdoms as they spread across to Europe, down into Africa, and even to the Americas. The enemy of our souls doesn't like for that to be known, as it is blotted out from historic writings in ours and most other schools and libraries.
Your thoughts are very much akin to those of us who have discovered our roots as being a part of those tribe's history and lineage.
MM
You need MM, to study history .
You reject that about 1st century Roman writers and Josephus. That makes you just another dispensational commentator on prophecies in the Bible. Don't ever say I am outclassed here or anywhere. God is not a respecter of persons.
Ezekiel 37?!! Give me a break. Quotes from Don Preston are the answer. His book, "Who is this Babylon" a total game changer and actually my 1st book years ago (2008) or so. a totally spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 37. Note that we are in the church age , which was the age to come in AD70
You reject that about 1st century Roman writers and Josephus. That makes you just another dispensational commentator on prophecies in the Bible. Don't ever say I am outclassed here or anywhere. God is not a respecter of persons.
Ezekiel 37?!! Give me a break. Quotes from Don Preston are the answer. His book, "Who is this Babylon" a total game changer and actually my 1st book years ago (2008) or so. a totally spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 37. Note that we are in the church age , which was the age to come in AD70
-
Don, thank you for an excellent article about the inconsistencies of dispensationalism. Due to the fact this system places so much emphasis upon keeping Israel and the Church separate—Why would God being doing a work with Israel during the Church Age?l
From North Dallas 40 “Whenever I call it a business, you call it a game, whenever I call it a game you say it is a business.” This type of “flip-flopping” seems to apply to dispensationalism. There is no mention of a tribulation period in Ezekiel 37, it is missing.
Any fair reading of Ezekiel 37 requires Conversion, King, Constitution, and Dwelling Place (Temple) all of this is a “witness” to the nations. In their system all of this is millennial and if it is millennial how can it be being fulfilled now?
-
Patrick Shetler says:
June 29, 2015 at 8:26 am
Don, did some more thinking about this subject and Ezekiel 37. Here is the order of events.
1. Israel returns to the land.
2. Israel is converted from Idol worship.
3. The Son of David will be their king.
4. They will follow God’s laws and keep his decrees.
5. God will make a new covenant with them.
6. God will make a dwelling place/sanctuary with them.
7. This will be a sign to the nations.
8. There will be a battle of Gog and Magog.
9. A New Temple Described which provides the water of Life to the world.
Simply put the order of Ezekiel does not fit into any dispensational scheme or maintain dispensational distinctions. The return happens in the church age. Israel was converted from idol worship after the return from the Babylonian exile. There is no mention of the tribulation period. The temple is not built until after the Gog/Magog war. The outline fits much better with the Preterist view of fulfillment with its understanding that the throne of David is in heaven and the new covenant initiated with the church and the Gog Magog war being the Jewish war of 70 AD.
-
Don K Preston says:
June 30, 2015 at 6:38 am
Exactly right, Peter. I love Ezekiel 37f. Note particularly that YHVH said He would set his tabernacle among the nations and I will be their
God, and they shall be my people.” Then, in 2 Corinthians 6:14f, Paul cites that text verbatim and says that the church was that promised Temple / Tabernacle! Incredible stuff!
I guess we can now join the atheists and liberals in discounting the literal veracity of what God allegedly said. Christ isn't literally returning. Prophecies are nothing but spiritual, fictional allegories. Wow! How morally liberating. We can now in good conscience join the modern western culture .
Last edited:
Folks, generally speaking, there are indeed many writers out there who allegoricalize-spiritualize the scriptures in order to twist them to their personal bias. Nothing new about that at all. Historians have indeed recorded many things that happened in the past, which is great, but they are not the definers of meaning nor intent from the things of God.
Additionally, we have to keep in mind that antagonism is far from the means by which we can discuss topics constructively, especially to the point of conviction. When antagonism is the tone of rebuttals, that's when we can pretty much rest assured about the weak and shabby foundations upon which those who vomit antagonism knows they are on shabby grounding. It's my hope that others here will enter into this topic without feeling intimidated by antagonistic rhetoric that fails to establish their views as worthy of consideration.
Of greatest value is 1 John 2:27, whereby we have a Source from Whom we know without a doubt that the truth may be known and grasped that can, and does much of the time, run counter to the various departures from proper hermeneutics.
MM
Additionally, we have to keep in mind that antagonism is far from the means by which we can discuss topics constructively, especially to the point of conviction. When antagonism is the tone of rebuttals, that's when we can pretty much rest assured about the weak and shabby foundations upon which those who vomit antagonism knows they are on shabby grounding. It's my hope that others here will enter into this topic without feeling intimidated by antagonistic rhetoric that fails to establish their views as worthy of consideration.
Of greatest value is 1 John 2:27, whereby we have a Source from Whom we know without a doubt that the truth may be known and grasped that can, and does much of the time, run counter to the various departures from proper hermeneutics.
MM
Do you have more than one account on here? Was your account just hacked?
I rejected nothing. If you can quote me as saying such, then please do, because I never did say that Josephus is to be rejected because... No. As to Roman writers, that would depend upon who and what subject is of interest.
So, please be more specific, if you would.
Thanks
MM
Most of Revelation is a spiritual analogy of the events that would physically happen to the unbelieving Jews. Wh you must identify 1st, comparing Scripture to Scripture in order to interpret the Text
Revelation is not a stand alone book that has no spiritual context to it.
The rider on the 1st horse is Christ. The people who the rocks will fall on were the unbelievers of the Jews which one would be taken into slavery and 5he others left for the birds to eat there flesh. Revelation describes the punishment on those Jews who rejected their Messiah.
The whole book is based on 7's. Each chapter showing a little difference in the Romans destruction of them with their weapons of that time. All chapters leading to the same end...Their complete destruction of their heaven and earth ( their temple) in AD70
Do you have more than one account on here? Was your account just hacked? I rejected nothing. If you can quote me as saying such, then please do, because I never did say that Josephus is to be rejected because... No. As to Roman writers, that would depend upon who and what subject is of interest. So, please be more specific, if you would. Thanks MM My program malfunctioned when quoting Harriet in a reply. Somehow my reply got tagged onto the end of her quote. I caught it and edited it, but that took a while because of the extraordinary length of her quote which I had to backspace and delete each character. You read it and replied before the edit was complete. I just noticed he recurrence of the glitci
Do you have more than one account on here? Was your account just hacked? I rejected nothing. If you can quote me as saying such, then please do, because I never did say that Josephus is to be rejected because... No. As to Roman writers, that would depend upon who and what subject is of interest. So, please be more specific, if you would. Thanks MM My program malfunctioned when quoting Harriet in a reply. Somehow my reply got tagged onto the end of her quote. I caught it and edited it, but that took a while because of the extraordinary length of her quote which I had to backspace and delete each character. You read it and replied before the edit was complete. I just noticed the recurrence of the glitch in this reply to you.
- Status