Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Dr James Ach

Today's Israel-Debunking The Myths

Recommended Posts

I want to start a topic here to dispel the satanic heresy that the current Jews that comprise that land of Israel are not real Jews, a theory in which denies that the current state of Israel is the fulfillment of numerous Bible prophecies regarding Israel returning to her land.

 

I am going to post a link to a video here, which I have posted before, but I want it to be prominent in a primary topic thread so it does not get lost in the middle of random posts. The video was created by Chris White, an 18 minute video that packs a ton of information in a short time, so take notes, but it thoroughly debunks the anti semetic view that the current state of Israel is made of fake Jews called the Ashkenazi Jews. Not only does this video debunk this ridiculous notion that spits in God's face regarding fulfilled prophecy, but I am going to have a few questions to ponder over, with other proofs that today's Israel is the Israel that has fulfilled prophecy. I am going to assume that most are aware of this history of the Balfour Declaration debates between 1914-1918, and the date Israel declared their independence in 1948, so I won't repeat that at any length here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXFUkvqnk9c

 

The Two Myths I want to debunk are: 1) That the current state of Israel is not the fulfillment of prophecy and 2) That the church did not take over as the Israel.

 

The Current State of Israel is the Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy

 

The contention is in a nutshell (the myth can be read on several places on the forum here) is that Lord Rothschild created the nation of Israel, the the flag of Israel is the number of the beast, and the current Jews living in Israel now are not real Jews and therefore no prophecy has been fulfilled.

 

This defies common sense and history of the development of Zionism prior to Rothchilds involvement. There were numerous Zionist congresses held by Jews in the land of Israel long before Rothschild was involved. Even if Rothschild was involved in the Illuminati (which he certainly is) and had evil intentions, that regathering of Jews to Israel is not contingent upon the spiritual life of Rothschild, Theodore Herzl, Lord Balfour, or anyone else. The Bible never said that the regathering of Israel depended on their faithfulness, the regathering of Israel was a PROMISE made in Ezekial 37, and Zechariah 14, and the salvation of Israel can only come AFTER they have been regathered. God did not gather Israel back together based on whether or not those who assisted could be judged by their professions of faith, but because God intends on working through Israel to demonstrates His faithfulness to Abraham, and his wrath upon the Christ rejecting world.

 

Just because Rothschild was not a Bible believing Christian, does not mean God does not use heathens to accomplish His purpose. God used heathens to assist Israel in rebuilding Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah (in getting approval from heathen kings for materials and permission to build). Artaxerxes, Ahasuerus, Darius, et al, were certainly not godly kings, but God worked through and around them to accomplish His purpose in the rebuilding of Israel and the temple. Since Paul clearly states that the Jew is blinded until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (Rom 11:25), how could anyone expect a godly Jewish people to reestablish the nation of Israel? The very first mention of the word "holy" in the Bible, is a reference to the land of Israel (Exodus 3), and God called the land Holy before any Jew occupied it. This demonstrates that God separated the land first, and then gathered the people to occupy it.

 

The Bible is clear that the land of Israel in the end times will be occupied by unbelieving Jews. Rev 2:2, 2:9 and 3:9. But Jesus praises the Jewish churches for trying them which say they are Jews and are not. To identify a false Jew, there has to be a true Jew as a standard of comparison. The entire book of Revelation revolves around the nation of Israel, and yet there are unbelieving Jews present in the land. Does the unfaithfulness of Israel negate the promises of God? (2 Tim 2:13). The gifts and calling of God are without repentance and can not be revoked (Rom 11:26). There is not one place in Scripture where the promise to regather Israel was based upon their acceptance of the Messiah FIRST. The fact is they are punished during the tribulation for their rejection of the Messiah, they will "finish the transgression" that was left out of the 70th week of Daniel. But they can not be purged unless they are regathered FIRST, and THEN they will be given the opportunity to receive Christ during the tribulation.

 

And just a parenthetical comment here about whether it is a 7 year tribulation. Not only is it a 7 year period based on Daniels 70th week, but read Revelation ch 11-13 carefully. Revelation is NOT in chronological order, and if you notice the time lines given of the 2 witness and the beast, they total 7 years. Now notice the 2 witnesses are said to prophesy "a thousand two hundred and threescore days" Rev 11:3, now note that this ministry comes BEFORE the second woe of Rev 11:14. So these 2 witnesses preached for 3 1/2 years BEFORE THE SECOND WOE. Note that. Now notice the third woe is given in Rev 12:10 "woe unto the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea, for the devil is come down unto having great wrath because he knoweth that he hath but a short time". And how much time does he have? "and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months" Rev 13:5. Now do the math, 2 witnesses preach for 3 1/2 years BEFORE THE SECOND WOE, and the beast wreaks havoc for 3 1/2 year AFTER THE THIRD WOE. That's 7 years.

 

Now back to Israel.

 

Here's a common sense question for those that claim that the current Israeli's are not real Jews. Since it is clear that the land of Israel is now occupied by a nation that has a charter called Israel, and there's no disputing that the land traditionally known as Israel, is now called Israel again, if the real Jews show up somewhere, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO SET UP ANOTHER LAND? If the "real Jews' are supposed to access the real Israel, and that Israel is already occupied, then where would the "real" Jews go??

 

And I'll get the following subject in a minute, but if it is claimed that the church is the real Jew, than WHY ISN'T THE CHURCH FLOCKING TO ISRAEL? And why is there no mention any where in the Bible of God regathering his CHURCH BACK TO ISRAEL?

 

The argument is made that since the Jews are made of  nothing but immigrants, that they are not real Jews. Well DUH, they were scattered all over the earth. A prophecy about "RE gathering" implies that had to be scattered. None of us American's that live here now call ourselves English-Americans, or French Americans or Russian Americans (funny that we force blacks to call themselves African Americans). We all refer to ourselves as AMERICANS even though every one of us are immigrants.

 

The arguments above, and the video are sufficient to prove that the current nation of Israel is the nation that God regathered in fulfillment of numerous prophecies.

 

The Church is Not Israel

 

*GRRRRRRR all of my external links went to a NKJV. Please look them up in a KJV.

 

The claim that the church has inherited all of the promises of the covenants to Israel and thus has replaced Israel is probably the most popular that unites all 3 views. All 3 views deny that God will restore the literal nation of Israel in the end times. The historicists and preterists even go so far as to blame the  dispensationalist view of those who believe in the literal restoration of Israel  on a Jesuit priest named Ribera in the 1500s. The claim is that the Catholic church (RCC) need a response to the claims that Revelation pointed to the RCC as the whore of Babylon, and thus Ribera created futurism which was then later passed on to John Darby, then to Scofield and Larkin.

Not only is that claim historically absurd due to the early church "fathers" that also held to a futuristic view, but Ribera's commentary was never translated from Latin and there is no evidence that Darby ever read his works and he never referenced them. Furthermore, Ribera's only similarity from what I have read is that there will be a future kingdom, there is nothing remotely similar about Ribera's writings and the pre-millenial views. Moreover, the RCC has never believed in pre-millenialism or a pre-tribulation rapture, and those who hold to those views still identify the RCC as the beast and the antichrist so whatever views are attributed to Ribera, do not look like the scheme worked even if it were true.

This subject has had entire volumes written about it so I won't do much justice to the subject here, but just a few short observations from Romans 9-11 which is a death blow to all 3 views regarding Israel:

*Paul argues that "hath God cast away his people that he foreknew?" Romans 11:1-2. So clearly, the contention is that someone had been cast away due to the dispensation of grace. If the church had replaced Israel, this question would not even be up for debate with Paul. If the church replaced Israel, why would the question be asked if God cast away His church which He foreknew? Who was Paul referring to that was cast away and that God foreknew? Surely Paul is talking about the literal Hebrews, and he answers the question with a resounding NO.

*Paul describes the nation of Israel as his brothers "according to the flesh". Rom 9:3. The church are not Paul's brothers according to the flesh, church members are made family by adoption through the Holy Spirit, not by promise of covenants with Israel. Rom 8:23. Thus Paul sets the entire tone of Romans chs 9-11 by identifying his discourse about Israel as being his physical lineage, not about promises given to the church by transference.

*The other view often cite Luke 13 where Jesus cursed the fig tree as evidence that Israel will never be restored. However, Rom 11:15clearly shows that God will raise Israel as a nation "from the dead". Therefore Luke 13 can only be temporary as is confirmed by Paul in Romans 11:25.

*Paul repeatedly makes distinctions between the Jews and Greeks (gentiles) throughout Scripture (Rom 1:16Acts 28:29 which you will only find in a KJV). In Rom 11:13, Paul confirms that he is the apostle to the Gentiles and makes the distinction between his office over the Gentiles, and those who are of his flesh (v 14).

*Revelation 7:4-8 clearly shows that during the tribulation, 144,000 Jews will be sealed. If those who profess that the church replaced Israel, then let me ask to which of the twelve tribes listed in Rev 7:5-8 do you belong to?

*It is obvious from Daniel 9:25-272 Thess 2:1-12, and Rev 11:1-2 that there will be temple rites practiced again during the tribulation, such as would not be practiced by the church. Furthermore, saints saved during the tribulation are said to "sing the song of Moses and of the Lamb". The church would not be singing the song of Moses, that is a clear indication that there will be literal, physical blood-line Jews present during the tribulation that are saved in accordance to God's promises to them in the OT and Paul's statement in Romans 11:26.

* I mentioned this early but worth saying again. In Rev 2:22:9, and 3:9, Jesus praises the Jewish churches for identify false Jews. First thing to note, is that in order to identifying a false Jew, there needs to be a true Jew as a standard of comparison. Secondly, there is nowhere in the epistles to the church where a Gentile believer is admonished to "try them which say they are Jews and are not". During the dispensation of grace, there is neither "Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:27-28), but in Revelation 2-3, the emphasis is back on the Jew.

Another thing to note about Romans 11:26 where Paul says "all Israel will be saved", if that was a reference to the church, would that not be redundant? The church is sealed right now (Eph 4:301:13), there is no possible loss of that salvation so why would Paul make a reference to a future salvation of the church? That makes it obvious that Paul is referring to a future salvation of Israel as a nation, and not to a future salvation that is made up of Gentile believers.

*If the church replaced Israel, why would Paul bother writing an entire book to HEBREWS, and James write a book "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad"?

 

The church is under a completely different calling and set of prescriptions than the nation of Israel, and the confusion over Bible prophecy is the failure to understand the difference between the two. The church is a "mystery" not previously known, Eph 3:1-12, Col  1:26-27. Jesus said, "on this rock I will build my church", thus the church can not be Israel because the church is in a building process build separate from the nation of Israel which will culminate when the voice John hears that speaks as a trumpet (and notice this trumpet sounds before the 7 trumpets begin) tells the church to come up hither. Rev 4:1.

 

Additional Signs That Validate The Current State of Israel

 

The following are numerous signs that have occurred in Israel that show that God is fulfilling prophecy in the CURRENT land of Israel.

 

*A PURE LANGUAGE: "I will restore until the peoples a pure language" Zeph 3:9. For nearly 2000 years, Israel has been scattered through out the earth, yet in the last 50 years, they have revived the Hebrew language spoken as it was 2000 years ago.

 

*ISRAEL BECAME A NATION IN A DAY: Despite the reneging by Churchill on the Balfour Declaration that chopped up the land of Israel, and the opposition of their enemies, in ONE DAY Israel became a nation in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:8. Not only that, but when they were regathered, the ORDER that they would be gathered in was predicted. Isa 43:5-6, and 21.

 

*LAND DIVIDED FOR GAIN. Winston Churchill and the UN and the Pope refused to allow the Jews all of the land that they claimed as part of their heritage with the borders listed in Deut and Joshua, and divided the land for gain. Joel 3:1-2. 

 

*ISRAEL BECOMES CENTER OF WORLD CONTENTION: Israel is said to be a stumbling block to all the nations and there can be no question today that all of the conflicts in the middle east revolve around the nation of Israel. Zech 12:3

 

*THE SHEKEL REVIVED: For 2000 years Israel had not national currency, and now that they have been regathered and restored as a nation, they have revived the currency of the shekel as predicted in Ezek 45:12-16.

 

*ISRAEL BARREN LAND BECOMES PRODUCTIVE AGAIN: For 2000 years that land of Israel was barren, dessert, even under the occupation of Turks, and other Arabs and the Ottoman empire, there was never any agriculture in the land,and no forestation, but now Israel produces more fruit (particularly the grapes) to rival the largest producers in the world. Isaiah 26:6, Isaiah 35:1-2.

 

There are scores of other prophecies that I could list here, but these demonstrate clearly that the CURRENT land of Israel not only fulfilled prophecy in it's regathering, but is CONTINUING to fulfill prophecy, and will be the center of prophecy during the coming great tribulation.

Edited by DrJamesA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel took control of Jerusalem again in 1967 after an almost two- thousand-year wait. Verses 19–24 of Isaiah chapter 30 describe Israel as living in hard times today. However, God has restored their wintertime rains and snows because Israel got rid of their idols. The later rains started in approximately 1982. God is also giving their leadership guidance. Unfortunately, Israel has not turned back to God. Think about it. This Bible passage was written to and for our generation! How could Isaiah have known that the climate would change so Israel could have grain for their animals? How could Isaiah have known that Israel would destroy their gold and silver idols? He knows because God told Isaiah. Fulfilled Bible prophecy proves the Bible is the Word of God! Since this prophecy is being fullfiled today, God oviously believes the people in Israel are his Jews returned.

 

Isaiah 30:18–30 KJV
18 And therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the Lord is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.
19 For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: thou shalt weep no more: he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry; when he shall hear it, he will answer thee.
20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:
21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
22 Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.
23 Then shall he give the rain of thy seed, that thou shalt sow the ground withal; and bread of the increase of the earth, and it shall be fat and plenteous: in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pastures.
24 The oxen likewise and the young asses that ear the ground shall eat clean provender, which hath been winnowed with the shovel and with the fan.

 

God has given Israel another chance to get right. Most continue to reject Jesus as their Messiah. They have turned from righteousness, according to Isaiah, and God is about to judge Israel. Zephaniah 1:14–2:3 says the judgment “is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly” when you see Israel the nation gathered.

 

 

I know it is the time of the end because Zephaniah 1:14–2:3 teaches that the great day of the Lord is near. It is near and hasteth greatly when Israel, the nation not desired, is gathered. Therefore, the end of days started in 1948 when Israel became a nation.

 

Zephaniah 1:14–2:3 KJV

14 The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

16 A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.

17 And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.

2 Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired;

2 Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord’s anger come upon you.

3 Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger.

 

This Scripture very clearly teaches that when the Jewish people are back in the land of Israel, the day of the Lord’s judgment is soon!  So the rapture in even sooner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Israel took control of Jerusalem again in 1967 after an almost two- thousand-year wait. Verses 19–24 of Isaiah chapter 30 describe Israel as living in hard times today. However, God has restored their wintertime rains and snows because Israel got rid of their idols. The later rains started in approximately 1982. God is also giving their leadership guidance. Unfortunately, Israel has not turned back to God. Think about it. This Bible passage was written to and for our generation! How could Isaiah have known that the climate would change so Israel could have grain for their animals? How could Isaiah have known that Israel would destroy their gold and silver idols? He knows because God told Isaiah. Fulfilled Bible prophecy proves the Bible is the Word of God! Since this prophecy is being fullfiled today, God oviously believes the people in Israel are his Jews returned.

 

Isaiah 30:18–30 KJV
18 And therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the Lord is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.
19 For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: thou shalt weep no more: he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry; when he shall hear it, he will answer thee.
20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:
21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
22 Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.
23 Then shall he give the rain of thy seed, that thou shalt sow the ground withal; and bread of the increase of the earth, and it shall be fat and plenteous: in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pastures.
24 The oxen likewise and the young asses that ear the ground shall eat clean provender, which hath been winnowed with the shovel and with the fan.

 

God has given Israel another chance to get right. Most continue to reject Jesus as their Messiah. They have turned from righteousness, according to Isaiah, and God is about to judge Israel. Zephaniah 1:14–2:3 says the judgment “is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly” when you see Israel the nation gathered.

 

 

I know it is the time of the end because Zephaniah 1:14–2:3 teaches that the great day of the Lord is near. It is near and hasteth greatly when Israel, the nation not desired, is gathered. Therefore, the end of days started in 1948 when Israel became a nation.

 

Zephaniah 1:14–2:3 KJV

14 The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

16 A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers.

17 And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.

2 Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired;

2 Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord’s anger come upon you.

3 Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger.

 

This Scripture very clearly teaches that when the Jewish people are back in the land of Israel, the day of the Lord’s judgment is soon!  So the rapture in even sooner!

How much of the land do they have to control before it's enough? Jerusalem isn't accepted as the capital of Israel and is also the key point between international acceptance and dealings with the Palestinians.

 

Also, if the Jews had to be back in the land of Israel (you haven't explained just what that means) before Christ could return, then that means there never was any possibility or hope of an imminent rapture prior to 1948, or 1967 if Jerusalem was the key, or perhaps some other date if the Jews must control a larger portion of biblical Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How much of the land do they have to control before it's enough? Jerusalem isn't accepted as the capital of Israel and is also the key point between international acceptance and dealings with the Palestinians.

 

Also, if the Jews had to be back in the land of Israel (you haven't explained just what that means) before Christ could return, then that means there never was any possibility or hope of an imminent rapture prior to 1948, or 1967 if Jerusalem was the key, or perhaps some other date if the Jews must control a larger portion of biblical Israel.

 

John,

Revelation 11:1–2 KJV

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

 

This passage explains that an angel is told to measure the temple, but what temple is that? The temple in Jerusalem is going to be rebuilt! Verse two points out that the courtyard of the temple is given to the Gentiles. What does that tell you?

The Jews will have only part of the temple mount to rebuild the tribulation temple. Presently, they don’t have the use of any of the temple mount. The last half of verse two states that the Gentiles (anyone not Jewish) will have control of Jerusalem for forty-two months, or half of the tribulation period. That means the Jews will lose control of the temple and Jerusalem for the last half of the tribulation period. Therefore the 7 year covenant that divides Israel will give Israel ½ the temple mount and all Jerusalem!

 

The day of the Lord could not happen till Israel had controle of Jerusalem. But the rapture could have happened any time! But now that the signs for the day of the Lord are showing up the raptur must come soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How much of the land do they have to control before it's enough? Jerusalem isn't accepted as the capital of Israel and is also the key point between international acceptance and dealings with the Palestinians.

 

Also, if the Jews had to be back in the land of Israel (you haven't explained just what that means) before Christ could return, then that means there never was any possibility or hope of an imminent rapture prior to 1948, or 1967 if Jerusalem was the key, or perhaps some other date if the Jews must control a larger portion of biblical Israel.

The immanency of the rapture is not dependent on the the regathering of Israel but rather shows that it is closer because the final events can not happen without the removal of the church, so in judging the events that show what generation would see all these signs, since we know prophecy surrounding Israel is occurring that means the rapture is soon to precede it.

 

After the tribulation is over, Israel will reign over the entire earth, so really doesn't matter how much of the original land they control now!

Edited by DrJamesA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John,

Revelation 11:1–2 KJV

11 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

 

This passage explains that an angel is told to measure the temple, but what temple is that? The temple in Jerusalem is going to be rebuilt! Verse two points out that the courtyard of the temple is given to the Gentiles. What does that tell you?

The Jews will have only part of the temple mount to rebuild the tribulation temple. Presently, they don’t have the use of any of the temple mount. The last half of verse two states that the Gentiles (anyone not Jewish) will have control of Jerusalem for forty-two months, or half of the tribulation period. That means the Jews will lose control of the temple and Jerusalem for the last half of the tribulation period. Therefore the 7 year covenant that divides Israel will give Israel ½ the temple mount and all Jerusalem!

 

The day of the Lord could not happen till Israel had controle of Jerusalem. But the rapture could have happened any time! But now that the signs for the day of the Lord are showing up the raptur must come soon!

How could the rapture have come at any moment if the 7 year tribulation starts immediately after that and you say such couldn't be until the Jews controled Jerusalem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The immanency of the rapture is not dependent on the the regathering of Israel but rather shows that it is closer because the final events can not happen without the removal of the church, so in judging the events that show what generation would see all these signs, since we know prophecy surrounding Israel is occurring that means the rapture is soon to precede it.

 

After the tribulation is over, Israel will reign over the entire earth, so really doesn't matter how much of the original land they control now!

If the rapture is to occur immediately prior to the 7 year tribulation, which requires Israel to be present, how could the rapture have come before 1948 or 1967?

 

What determines whether or not this is the regathering of Jews or not. The Jews have been regathering there for a long time. Was their calling themselves Israel in 1948 the date God says they have regathered or would it be when they captured Jerusalem, or do they have to hold more of the land of Israel because they actually hold very little of it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How could the rapture have come at any moment if the 7 year tribulation starts immediately after that and you say such couldn't be until the Jews controled Jerusalem?

John,

 

Why do you believe the tribulation must start immediately after the rapture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the rapture is to occur immediately prior to the 7 year tribulation, which requires Israel to be present, how could the rapture have come before 1948 or 1967?

 

What determines whether or not this is the regathering of Jews or not. The Jews have been regathering there for a long time. Was their calling themselves Israel in 1948 the date God says they have regathered or would it be when they captured Jerusalem, or do they have to hold more of the land of Israel because they actually hold very little of it now?

I think you are still putting the cart before the horse here. Again, the rapture is not contingent upon the tribulation, but the tribulation is contingent upon the rapture happening. The timing of the rapture and the regathering of Israel have all  been controlled by God. If the regathering of Israel was necessary for the rapture to occur, then God would have and could have caused the regathering of Israel much earlier, but in Peter's words, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promises but is long suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9. Bearing in mind that Peter was the apostle to the Jews, and his eschatology was in looking for the promises that were given to Israel which is why in the context of prophecy he says that the things Paul-the apostle to the Gentiles- wrote about were "hard to be understood". Why were they hard to understand to a Jew who knew about the promises to Israel? Because Paul gave prophecies about the church that did not line up with anything any Jew had known about the day of the Lord (which is not the rapture).

It is not that the rapture depends on the fulfillment of Israel, the rapture gives the antichrist opportunity to do what Christ said to Judas, "whatsoever thou doest, do quickly".

Immanency does not mean there can not be any signs whatsoever. It means that at any time God could have began His countdown but chose to give the church at least to date 2000 years to be built, and that the immanency of the rapture can be immanent within the time frame of predicted events surrounding Israel. This fits with Jesus and the apostles telling us to "watch". So clearly immanency carries with it the ability to tell when the timing of events are growing near otherwise to "watch" has no significance. The purpose of watching was not only to know when the events would be near, but an encouragement to the believer that his labor is not in vain, and as a warning to the backslider so they are not 'ashamed at his coming'.I John 2:28.

 

And what determines whether this is the regathering of the Jews or not? I believe that is answered in my original post in several ways in the first and third sections.

The Jews have survived 2000 years of persecutions, being scattered through out the earth, murdered in masses but never had their homeland secured until 1948. It is not necessary that they regain ALL of their previous borders in order to fulfill the prophecy about their regathering because even God stated that the politicians surrounding Israel in the end times would "divide the land for gain". Furthermore, I would think that with as many predictions as there are about end time events, I don't see how God would have missed an entire nation that stole the original land mass and called themselves Israel would have been missed by all the prophets if the current Israel is not the one God had in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

 

John and All,

 

Since this prophecy is being fulfilled today, God obviously believes the people in Israel are his Jews returned!!!!!!!!

 

Isaiah 30:18–30 KJV
18 And therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the Lord is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.
19 For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: thou shalt weep no more: he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry; when he shall hear it, he will answer thee.
20 And though the Lord give you the bread of adversity, and the water of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers:
21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.
22 Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.
23 Then shall he give the rain of thy seed, that thou shalt sow the ground withal; and bread of the increase of the earth, and it shall be fat and plenteous: in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pastures.
24 The oxen likewise and the young asses that ear the ground shall eat clean provender, which hath been winnowed with the shovel and with the fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Israel,

 

 

People of Israel, Jesus, your Messiah, is coming soon,

and this time He will come as King.

 

Hosea 5:14–15 KJV

14 For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him.

15 I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.

 

Jesus put the Jewish people out of the land of Israel for a time of indignation or judgment. Jesus restrained the latter rain and made your land a desert to save it for your return. Jesus will come back to save you when the nuclear fire falls on Israel, America, and Russia because Jewish survivors will turn to God, according to Ezekiel 39:1–8, 21–22.

 

Hosea 6:1–3 KJV

1 Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.

2 After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

3 Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.

 

As the end of Hosea’s two days (or two thousand years) nears, the Lord has brought you back into the land of Israel. In about 1982, the latter rain and snows came back. The rain is a sign that the Lord is coming soon. Israel is about to experience the judgment by fire and the returning to the Lord. You will live in His sight in the third day, or third thousand-year time period, which we call the kingdom age. If the third day is a thousand years long, the first two days should be two thousand years long!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The historicists and preterists even go so far as to blame the  dispensationalist view of those who believe in the literal restoration of Israel  on a Jesuit priest named Ribera in the 1500s. The claim is that the Catholic church (RCC) need a response to the claims that Revelation pointed to the RCC as the whore of Babylon, and thus Ribera created futurism which was then later passed on to John Darby, then to Scofield and Larkin.

Not only is that claim historically absurd due to the early church "fathers" that also held to a futuristic view, but Ribera's commentary was never translated from Latin and there is no evidence that Darby ever read his works and he never referenced them. Furthermore, Ribera's only similarity from what I have read is that there will be a future kingdom, there is nothing remotely similar about Ribera's writings and the pre-millenial views. Moreover, the RCC has never believed in pre-millenialism or a pre-tribulation rapture, and those who hold to those views still identify the RCC as the beast and the antichrist so whatever views are attributed to Ribera, do not look like the scheme worked even if it were true.

This subject has had entire volumes written about it so I won't do much justice to the subject here, but just a few short observations from Romans 9-11 which is a death blow to all 3 views regarding Israel:

James I did agree with the first part of your article but it became a diatribe.  Preterists may do as you say, but all of the historicists I have read believe in a literal restoration to tha land.  You mention Paul as saying mentioning the times of the gentiles, but that is misquoting scripture.  Paul says Ro 11:25  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Two different things.  Times of the Gentiles refers to gentile rule over the land.  Jesus said when this ended the Jews would return.  Fulness of the gentiles refers to the total of the elect gentiles being gathered in, after which the the Jews will be gathered in. 

 

The 7 churches in Revelation were churches at the time the book was written.  They may have also referred to the history of the church in different ages, or to parts of the church at all times, but not to Jewish churches.  The book of revelation was written ti the church, Rev 1, not to the Jews.  It concerns the church and her tribulations through the ages.

 

You also said that all the church fathers were futurist.  Nonsense.  Have you ever read them?  They all taught that the let or hinderance in 2 Thess was the empereor and the empire because Paul said he had told them, and they told us.  You know, said Paul.  We know said tertullian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can trace, the Times of the Gentiles is only once mentioned in the scripture.

 

Lu 21:24  And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 

 

From that I gather that the Jews would return to the land at that time.  Some say that this would be 2520 years after King Neb destroyed Jerusalem.  Be that as it may, I believe that the Tmes of the Gentiles began when Allenby led his horse into Jeruralem in  1917, thus ending the Turkish rule over the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John,

 

Why do you believe the tribulation must start immediately after the rapture?

Most teachings on this indicate the tribulation begins immediately after the rapture. Do you hold to a view that the rapture could occur today, things could then continue on as usual for years, decades or centuries before tribulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most teachings on this indicate the tribulation begins immediately after the rapture. Do you hold to a view that the rapture could occur today, things could then continue on as usual for years, decades or centuries before tribulation?

The tribulation will start when the antichrist confirms the covenant to divide Israel. I think it will take some time after the rapture for the antichrist to come to power and be in a position to sign the covenant.

 

Daniel 9:27 KJV

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The tribulation will start when the antichrist confirms the covenant to divide Israel. I think it will take some time after the rapture for the antichrist to come to power and be in a position to sign the covenant.

 

Daniel 9:27 KJV

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Are you speaking here of the beginning of what is called the 7 year tribulation or the 3 1/2 year Great tribulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you speaking here of the beginning of what is called the 7 year tribulation or the 3 1/2 year Great tribulation?

Both because the last half or the 7 year covenant time period is the great tribulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
James I did agree with the first part of your article but it became a diatribe.  Preterists may do as you say, but all of the historicists I have read believe in a literal restoration to tha land.  You mention Paul as saying mentioning the times of the gentiles, but that is misquoting scripture.  Paul says Ro 11:25  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. Two different things.  Times of the Gentiles refers to gentile rule over the land.  Jesus said when this ended the Jews would return.  Fulness of the gentiles refers to the total of the elect gentiles being gathered in, after which the the Jews will be gathered in. 

 

The 7 churches in Revelation were churches at the time the book was written.  They may have also referred to the history of the church in different ages, or to parts of the church at all times, but not to Jewish churches.  The book of revelation was written ti the church, Rev 1, not to the Jews.  It concerns the church and her tribulations through the ages.

 

You also said that all the church fathers were futurist.  Nonsense.  Have you ever read them?  They all taught that the let or hinderance in 2 Thess was the empereor and the empire because Paul said he had told them, and they told us.  You know, said Paul.  We know said tertullian. 

One reason I am not a historicist is because I study the Bible first, then I study the Bible second, then I study the Bible third, and then I might see what a church "father" had to say about it. I'll revisit that thought at the end.

 

If the time of the Gentiles or even the fulfilling of the Gentiles has already come to pass, then you are missing the part where it says "blindness has happened in part unto Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in". Have the Jews "saw the light"? I don't think so, so obviously that event has not occurred yet. The same passage that Christ gave about the fullness of the Gentiles in Luke 21:24, is the exact same description John gives in Rev 11:2. Preterists and Historicists seem to want to interpret this event as being fulfilled in AD 70, but forget the part of Romans where Paul said that blindness in part happens to Israel UNTIL the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled, obviously implying that when the event occurs, Israel will no longer be under blindness. Since Israel has YET to claim Christ as their Messiah, then it is clear that any reference to "time" or "fullness" do not occur until the tribulation. I disagree with my fellow futurists that the "fulness of the Gentiles" means "church age" since it is clearly associated with an attack on Jerusalem for 3 1/2 years. Although I do believe in a clear division in Scripture that supports a church economy, I do not believe this is the appropriate passage to support it. But what it does prove is that, as I stated, blindness in part happens to Israels until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled, and considering that John gives it 3 1/2 years (a TIME frame) then there is nothing wrong with calling it the TIME (3 1/2 years) of the Gentiles as synonymous with the fulfilling of the Gentiles. All three major passages (Luke 21 and Rom 11 with Rev 11:2) are in the context of God dealing with the JEWISH people, not the church.

 

The 7 churches in Rev 2-3 are, doctrinally, 7 JEWISH TRIBULATION churches. I have laid this out in other threads but will do so again here and you have to notice the differences in the prescriptions given to these 7 churches compared to those of the church, they are totally different:

 

*There are repeated references to Jewish relics that would be familiar to a Jew and of no consequence to a Gentile: golden candlesticks, synagogue of Satan (notice it doesn't say CHURCH of Satan, but synagogue,no Gentile would be concerned over a synagogue or describe any location as such).

 

*Stories are referred to that would be familiar to Jews and they are accused of permitting actions that included participation of OT Jews: Holding the doctrine of Baalam who taught Balac to be stumbling block to Israel (2:14) and suffering that women Jezebel (2:20) these are stories a Jew would be familiar with.

 

*References to eating things sacrificed unto idols (2:14, 2:20). These were also concerns that Peter had who was the apostles to the JEWS, but Paul to the GENTILES said we could eat if we had a clear conscience. Rom 14. To a JEW who will be practicing the law again during the tribulation (these are they which keep the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD and the faith of Jesus Rev 14:12, and sing the song of MOSES the servant of God, Rev 15:3), these rebukes have a meaningful significance.

 

*The churches are trying Jews in Rev 2:2. There is no place in the epistles to the church where the Gentile church, body of Christ is ever admonished to try Jews or apostles (2:2, 2:9; 3:9)

 

*The churches are under an implied threat that if they are not overcomers they may have their names blotted out of the book of life (Rev 3:5) and be subject to the second death if they do not overcome. Rev 2:11. You will not find that prescription anywhere in the epistles to the church in this age. These saints are told to keep their garments (Rev 16:12), which they EARN during the tribulation ON EARTH, the saints in this age are changed at the rapture IN HEAVEN in the twinkling of an eye. 

 

Now Scripture in the Bible has 3 applications: Historical, Spiritual and Doctrinal. Historically, these were 7 literal churches at the time John wrote, Spiritually they describe 7 stages of church history, Doctrinally they are a reference to Jewish churches in the tribulation.

 

Now about the church "fathers" and what they taught about the "let". It is absurd to interpret that as being the Empire of Rome at the time, for one, the person who "lets" is "taken out of the way", since the beast (Rome) is still present during the presence of the antichrist, the dragon, and the false prophet that would be an impossible implication. Note the order of the Dragon and the beasts: The dragon is cast of out heaven-Rev 12:9, John sees a beast rise out of the sea (the whore that sitteth on many waters Rev 17:1-2) in 13:1=ROME, then another beast rises from the earth in Rev 13:11, the false prophet (all 3 are identified as the dragon, the beast and the false prophet in Rev 16:13), so I am not concerned with what any church "father" said, when it is clear from scripture that their conclusions are impossible.

Moreover, the beast is described as a SHE in Revelation 17 and 19:2-3 (her), not a HE as in 2 Thess 2. There are 2 beasts, one is a she (Rome) and one is a HE, the false prophet. Satan always attempts to imitate Christ, so during the tribulation, the false prophet has a whore as opposed to Christ who has a virgin bride.

 

Furthermore, I did not say that ALL of the church "fathers" were futurist, my argument was that there are at least SOME that are, and if there are ANY AT ALL then that refutes the accusation that futurism was an invention of a Jesuit priest in the 1500s.

 

And when I said they were futurists, that does not mean that their futurism is dependent on my view of 2 Thessalonians. There is no need to try and boot strap one argument about who "lets" in 2 Thess and use that as an evidence they were not futurists. Most of them believed in a FUTURE restoration of Israel, a FUTURE rapture, a FUTURE return of Christ personally to the earth, a FUTURE judgment of the unsaved and Satan, a FUTURE thousand year reign, and a FUTURE new heaven and new earth. That in a nutshell is what futurism is, and to say that the early church "fathers" didn't believe that is to risk being placed in a white coat under involuntary commitment to the loony bin. 

 

But,regardless of what any early church teacher taught or didn't teach, the advantage that I have in relying on the BIBLE as my FINAL AUTHORITY is that I have numerous authors to compare Scripture with Scripture, of whom I know are inspired. Because the Roman Empire destroyed many writings, we'll never know what all of the early church taught, so I will go by the one Book that they did not and could not destroy.

Edited by DrJamesA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One reason I am not a historicist is because I study the Bible first, then I study the Bible second, then I study the Bible third, and then I might see what a church "father" had to say about it. I'll revisit that thought at the end.

 

If the time of the Gentiles or even the fulfilling of the Gentiles has already come to pass, then you are missing the part where it says "blindness has happened in part unto Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in". Have the Jews "saw the light"? I don't think so, so obviously that event has not occurred yet. The same passage that Christ gave about the fullness of the Gentiles in Luke 21:24, is the exact same description John gives in Rev 11:2. Preterists and Historicists seem to want to interpret this event as being fulfilled in AD 70, but forget the part of Romans where Paul said that blindness in part happens to Israel UNTIL the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled, obviously implying that when the event occurs, Israel will no longer be under blindness. Since Israel has YET to claim Christ as their Messiah, then it is clear that any reference to "time" or "fullness" do not occur until the tribulation. I disagree with my fellow futurists that the "fulness of the Gentiles" means "church age" since it is clearly associated with an attack on Jerusalem for 3 1/2 years. Although I do believe in a clear division in Scripture that supports a church economy, I do not believe this is the appropriate passage to support it. But what it does prove is that, as I stated, blindness in part happens to Israels until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled, and considering that John gives it 3 1/2 years (a TIME frame) then there is nothing wrong with calling it the TIME (3 1/2 years) of the Gentiles as synonymous with the fulfilling of the Gentiles. All three major passages (Luke 21 and Rom 11 with Rev 11:2) are in the context of God dealing with the JEWISH people, not the church.

 Well as you know, I completely reject the theory of a future tribulation.   I believe that the tribulation in Matt, Mark, and Luke is the tribulation on the Jews which began in AD 66 and continued ever since in one way or another.  The tribulation in Revelation is a tribulation on the church, which has taken place since gospel times.  

The 7 churches in Rev 2-3 are, doctrinally, 7 JEWISH TRIBULATION churches. I have laid this out in other threads but will do so again here and you have to notice the differences in the prescriptions given to these 7 churches compared to those of the church, they are totally different:

They were churches at the time, "Things which are".     Can you prove from history or scriprture that they were jewish churches at that time?

*There are repeated references to Jewish relics that would be familiar to a Jew and of no consequence to a Gentile: golden candlesticks, synagogue of Satan (notice it doesn't say CHURCH of Satan, but synagogue,no Gentile would be concerned over a synagogue or describe any location as such).

 

*Stories are referred to that would be familiar to Jews and they are accused of permitting actions that included participation of OT Jews: Holding the doctrine of Baalam who taught Balac to be stumbling block to Israel (2:14) and suffering that women Jezebel (2:20) these are stories a Jew would be familiar with.

 

*References to eating things sacrificed unto idols (2:14, 2:20). These were also concerns that Peter had who was the apostles to the JEWS, but Paul to the GENTILES said we could eat if we had a clear conscience. Rom 14. To a JEW who will be practicing the law again during the tribulation (these are they which keep the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD and the faith of Jesus Rev 14:12, and sing the song of MOSES the servant of God, Rev 15:3), these rebukes have a meaningful significance.

 

*The churches are trying Jews in Rev 2:2. There is no place in the epistles to the church where the Gentile church, body of Christ is ever admonished to try Jews or apostles (2:2, 2:9; 3:9)

 

*The churches are under an implied threat that if they are not overcomers they may have their names blotted out of the book of life (Rev 3:5) and be subject to the second death if they do not overcome. Rev 2:11. You will not find that prescription anywhere in the epistles to the church in this age. These saints are told to keep their garments (Rev 16:12), which they EARN during the tribulation ON EARTH, the saints in this age are changed at the rapture IN HEAVEN in the twinkling of an eye.   

No sir, the garments are not earned, Just like any other garments of salvation they are given.  Zech. 3:4  Matt.22:11  And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12  And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13  Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 
Salvation is never earned
 
Now Scripture in the Bible has 3 applications: Historical, Spiritual and Doctrinal. Historically, these were 7 literal churches at the time John wrote, Spiritually they describe 7 stages of church history, Doctrinally they are a reference to Jewish churches in the tribulation.

 

Now about the church "fathers" and what they taught about the "let". It is absurd to interpret that as being the Empire of Rome at the time, for one, the person who "lets" is "taken out of the way", since the beast (Rome) is still present during the presence of the antichrist, the dragon, and the false prophet that would be an impossible implication. Note the order of the Dragon and the beasts: The dragon is cast of out heaven-Rev 12:9, John sees a beast rise out of the sea (the whore that sitteth on many waters Rev 17:1-2) in 13:1=ROME, then another beast rises from the earth in Rev 13:11, the false prophet (all 3 are identified as the dragon, the beast and the false prophet in Rev 16:13), so I am not concerned with what any church "father" said, when it is clear from scripture that their conclusions are impossible.

It is strange that you claim the church fathers when it suits you and reject them when it doesn't. 

Moreover, the beast is described as a SHE in Revelation 17 and 19:2-3 (her), not a HE as in 2 Thess 2. There are 2 beasts, one is a she (Rome) and one is a HE, the false prophet. Satan always attempts to imitate Christ, so during the tribulation, the false prophet has a whore as opposed to Christ who has a virgin bride.

 

Furthermore, I did not say that ALL of the church "fathers" were futurist, my argument was that there are at least SOME that are, and if there are ANY AT ALL then that refutes the accusation that futurism was an invention of a Jesuit priest in the 1500s.

But you have never given any evidence that any taught futurism.  Of course the prophecies referred to the future when they lived, but they are history now.

And when I said they were futurists, that does not mean that their futurism is dependent on my view of 2 Thessalonians. There is no need to try and boot strap one argument about who "lets" in 2 Thess and use that as an evidence they were not futurists. Most of them believed in a FUTURE restoration of Israel, a FUTURE rapture, a FUTURE return of Christ personally to the earth, a FUTURE judgment of the unsaved and Satan, a FUTURE thousand year reign, and a FUTURE new heaven and new earth. That in a nutshell is what futurism is, and to say that the early church "fathers" didn't believe that is to risk being placed in a white coat under involuntary commitment to the loony bin. 

Nonsense, That is what most historicists believe.

But,regardless of what any early church teacher taught or didn't teach, the advantage that I have in relying on the BIBLE as my FINAL AUTHORITY is that I have numerous authors to compare Scripture with Scripture, of whom I know are inspired. Because the Roman Empire destroyed many writings, we'll never know what all of the early church taught, so I will go by the one Book that they did not and could not destroy.

 

No sir, you final authority is what you have been taught that the scripture believes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both because the last half or the 7 year covenant time period is the great tribulation.

I don't know that I've heard a teaching on this that doesn't say the tribulation follows right after the rapture. Even from what you have said you don't seem to think it will be very long after the rapture before the tribulation begins. Either way that would mean there could have been no rapture until close to 1948 or 1967 and this goes against the teaching that the rapture has always been imminent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know that I've heard a teaching on this that doesn't say the tribulation follows right after the rapture. Even from what you have said you don't seem to think it will be very long after the rapture before the tribulation begins. Either way that would mean there could have been no rapture until close to 1948 or 1967 and this goes against the teaching that the rapture has always been imminent.

The rapture was imminent but the day of the Lord would always have had to come soon after it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rapture was imminent but the day of the Lord would always have had to come soon after it.

How can that be? If what you call the day of the Lord must come soon after the rapture then by what you have said regarding Israel, no rapture could have been imminent until sometime at least near 1948 or 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can that be? If what you call the day of the Lord must come soon after the rapture then by what you have said regarding Israel, no rapture could have been imminent until sometime at least near 1948 or 1967.

Sure it could. If the rapture came earlyer, the Jews would have gone back to Israel earlyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

InvictaWell as you know, I completely reject the theory of a future tribulation.   I believe that the tribulation in Matt, Mark, and Luke is the tribulation on the Jews which began in AD 66 and continued ever since in one way or another.  The tribulation in Revelation is a tribulation on the church, which has taken place since gospel times.  

 

That is because you accept an unproven early date of Revelation. The tribulation in Matthew 24, Luke 13 is the same events described in Revelation. The problem with historicism is that they attempt to stretch events out through out history and don't believe the Bible when it says 42 months and one thousand two hundred and threescore days. When Revelation gives specific time frames, historicist allegorize the time frames to make them identify a time period that is against how the scriptures read. When the Bible says 3 1/2 years, it means 3 1/2 years, and where there are 2 divisions of 3 1/2 years, that's 7 years. Three and one half years, doesn't mean 1200 years, or 1250 years or 1500 years, or 2000 years with a few give or takes here and there, it means 3 1/2 years each,

 

InvictaThey were churches at the time, "Things which are".     Can you prove from history or scriprture that they were jewish churches at that time?

 

I gave very specific details in my post as to the evidence that they are Jewish churches. It is not necessary for history to prove it, the evidence is in the Bible. And I specifically gave 3 applications, but the message was not given to the churches, it was given to the ANGELS of the churches. And by the way, since the church of Smyrna did not exist in AD 66, Revelation could not have possibly been written before AD 70.

 

Invicta: No sir, the garments are not earned, Just like any other garments of salvation they are given.  Zech. 3:4  Matt.22:11  And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: 12  And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. 13  Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 
Salvation is never earned
 
A garment that is freely given can not be taken away, otherwise it is not a gift. In Revelation, these garments can be taken away "Blessed is he that KEEPETH HIS GARMENT, lest he walk naked and they see his shame" Rev 16:15. And in Revelation 3:11, their crowns can be taken "Behold I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast that no man TAKE THY CROWN". You can't be told to keep something that you are not in possession of in the first place, and if you are told to keep something that you already have, that means it can be lost. That may not be popular theology but that's what the Bible says.
 
Furthermore, you ignored the numerous verses that state that works is in addition to faith during the tribulation, it is not a works of earning salvation, but the price one pays for their belief during the tribulation, if a believer professes faith, he must reject the antichrist and the mark and name of the beast which results in death. All through Revelation is clear that those who do not overcome as Christ overcame (Rev 3:21) by death, risk being blotted out of the book of life (Rev 3:5) and risk subjection to the second death (Rev 2:11). Those who overcome are given RIGHT to the tree of life (Rev 2:7, Rev 22:14), and in Rev 14:13 John is told to write "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth. Yea saith the Spirit that they may REST FROM THEIR LABORS, and their WORKS do follow them".
 
There is a totally different them in Revelation then there is through out the epistles to the church. It may not make sense when trying to compare it with the eternal security evidence of the Pauline epistles, or Peters statement in I Peter 1:5, or many of Jesus statements, but that's the way Revelation is laid out, it details a system of works that implies a person that believes during the tribulation must prove it by martyrdom.
 
Invicta: It is strange that you claim the church fathers when it suits you and reject them when it doesn't.
 
Wow, touche. There is a difference in accepting what a historical figure writes as a matter of recorded history, and as a matter of doctrine. Many of the "fathers" that you quote, for example, Iraneus and Tertuallian called Mary a saviour, and at one point, Iraneus stated that Jesus was 50 years old. So obviously, just because they were closer to the time of Christ than I was, doesn't mean I have to accept their DOCTRINAL views when they are clearly not in line with scripture, but their HISTORICAL writings do not depend on an interpretation of whether are not they are correct doctrinally. Most readily admit that Josephus provided some of the most detailed history of the times of the early church, but would you accept his opinions about doctrine
 
It is absurd to assume that because someone is older, that I must accept their Biblical interpretations as infallable. I question any heresy from the early church "fathers" the same way I questioned those in my own IFB denomination when they started compromising on the KJV and taught bride-chamber theology.
 
And it is strange that you accept them doctrinally, when all of their historical evidence holds that Revelation was written while John was in exile on the isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, whose reign did not begin until early AD 80, and that John wrote Revelation in AD 95. Not one historian says otherwise until after 500 AD.
 
Invicta: But you have never given any evidence that any taught futurism.  Of course the prophecies referred to the future when they lived, but they are history now.
 
And then you answered your own accusation: Invicta: Nonsense, That is what most historicists believe.
 
If you conceed that "most historicists" believe what I said about what a futurist believes, and historicists claim to base their eschatology on the early church "fathers" then it is a complete contradiction in terms to claim that futurism is an invalid form of eschatology when there are at least some forms of it that you have to admit are valid to your own system of interpretation which defeats any argument you have made against futurism as a whole.
 
Invicta:No sir, you final authority is what you have been taught that the scripture believes
 
Isn't everybody taught by somebody when they first get saved? I suppose that you are a special case that you got saved and then somehow managed to come up with an eschatology system that somehow miraculously became similar to what the rest of the Bible student world knows to be historicism. And you frequently quote the early church elders as evidence of Biblical validation of your eschotological  views. When I was first saved in the 70s, I of course got my milk from various preachers and books, and yes, I have 8 years of Bible college training, but there's quite a bit that I write about and teach about that in not in agreement with what my own denomination teaches because I don't believe in being a cliche Christian. Very seldom do I ever read a commentary, I study the Bible by itself for a minimum of 4 hours a day (2 hours of memorization and 2 hours of reading Proverbs, Psalms one other book out of the OT and one out of the NT).
 
Furthermore, Jesus clearly expected there to be a succession in the basics of the Bible. And Paul verifies this in 2 Tim 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also". There is plenty of evidence within the independent Baptist denomination that there has been a consistent succession in doctrine taught. So there is nothing wrong with being taught by someone else, the error is in accepting any wind of doctrine without independently verifying the claims. Some of the early church "fathers" were guilty of this (Diotrophes, Hymenaeus,Philetus, Alexander). And as I stated before, the Roman empire went to great lengths to burn the writings of many of the church leaders so we will never know exactly what all of them taught. We have enough to verify the manuscript evidence and make conclusion on basic elements of the fundamentals, but all study should be done in Berean style "search the scriptures daily whether those things be so".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Totoosart
      Greetings, all,
      Hope you are all doing great and the Lord is smiling and offering you all His kind Grace and blessings.
      Studying the Good Book, questions rise after questions, i hope it's a good thing.
      Reading the Old testament, we come across the word 'Israel' when God tells Jacob:
      i believe this is the first mention of that name, and then it has been mentioned multiple times on and on, especially through the book of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Hoshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, a good number of Psalms, starting with Psalm 14 and ending with Psalm 149, Proverbs 1, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phiippians, Hebrews, and finally in Revelation 21: 12.
      if i am not wrong, this word: 'Israel' has been mentioned about 2714 times!
      i understand that most of the time this word is refered to as the people, or the land, or children of Jacob and suchlike, but what about the first time it was mentioned? and what about the time when it is mentioned in the New Testament? For instance:
       
      Or better still:
       
      Surely here 'Israel' does not only refer to the Jews or the children of Jacob, and is different, or at least i humbly believe so, but being a nurd, i'd like to make sure.
       
      Thanks a lot for your time and kindness.
       
      Bless your hearts,
      Totoo
    • By LindaR
      This is beautiful!  Please turn the sound slider down to about half way....it starts out way too loud.
    • By MountainChristian
      They believe the rapture took place before 70 AD. We missed it. 
    • By In the Cross
      On a recent missions trip to Israel, I put together a short documentary on a recent prophetic fulfillment in Northern Israel that is very significant for the time frame we are living in today.
       
      Isaiah 29;17-18  "Is it not yet a very little while,and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field,and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book,and the eyes of the blind shall see out of OBscurity,and out of darkness."
       

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 43 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...