Israel is evil.

[aleshanee]

I'll bet you think the mosque has no right to be there.

Why would that be?

again.... i do not care one way or the other what sits on the mount currently occupied by the dome of the rock... ... the way i see it it;s up to the residents of palestine ... all of them.... jews - christians - muslims - even nonbelievers who reside there to decide what is there... .. in other words whoever lives in palestine and has the right to vote can decide the fate of the mosque currently there..

is that clear enough?.. ..if not consider this... . palestine is literally on the opposite side of the earth from where i live.... ... 12 noon there is 12 midnight here..... i have never been there... never seen it... and will never live there in this lifetime...... even if i visited the best i would ever be there is a tourist...... and i still would not care.... my sister has been there and seen it several times in the course of her job and she doesn;t care what sits there either.... even though on the job she was still technically a tourist too ... ...and she is technically still a tourist wherever in the world her job takes her......

check the history of how hawaiians view tourists that try to tell them how to do things on their own island and maybe you will get the idea......

and yes... before you make another assinine assumption... i am well aware of the biblical and historical significance of that piece of elevated ground also known as the temple mount... .. i know what scripture tells us happened there and what some believe biblical prophecy says will happen there in the future.... i know why it is sacred to me personally as a christian.... .as well as why it is sacred to all 3 main religions existing in the area.... ... .. and i still don;t care what sits there.... my faith is in Christ and dependent on God entirely... it does not rest on a piece of real estate that God could render into oblivion any time He wishes to....

now do you understand?

 

[illinoisguy]

Nothing you said abrogates the Abrahamic Covenant.

Partial list of Bible verses that teach that the possession of the Promised Land by the Israelites was CONDITIONAL:

Genesis 17:8, 14 - The covenant and land grant were conditional on being circumcised.

Exodus 19:5 - The covenant was conditional on the obedience of the Israelites.

Numbers 14:30 - Entry to the Promised Land delayed for 40 years due to disobedience.

Deuteronomy 4:25-26 - Possession of the land is conditional on obeying God's judgments.

Deuteronomy 11:16-17 - Possession is conditional on observing God's statutes.

Joshua 23:15-16 - Israelites will perish from the land if they serve other gods.

1 Kings 9:6-9 and 2 Chronicles 7:19-22 - God will pluck them out of the land if they disobey.

2 Kings 21: 8-9 - Possession of the land is conditional on obedience to the Law of Moses.

Ezra 9:12-14 - Possession is conditional on not intermarrying with the heathen.

Nehemiah 1:8-9 - Possession of the land, and restoration after exile, are both conditional on keeping the Law of Moses.

Jeremiah 7:3-6 , 9:13-16 - Possession conditional on making a drastic change in their morals.

Jeremiah 44:22 - God kicked them out of the land due to their abominations.

Lamentations 1:10 - Protection from heathen taking over Jerusalem was conditional on Judah's obedience.

Ezekiel 33:24-26 - Hebrews were removed from their inheritance from Abraham because of their abominations.

Matthew 21:43, 23:38 - Christ decreed that the Kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews due to their rejection of the Messiah.

(If possession of the land was unconditional, this would mean that God broke His covenant when He decreed the removal of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC, then the southern kingdom of Judah in 586 BC, finally the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Surely we do not believe that God would break His covenant, do we)?

[Posted with apologies to those who do not like long posts]

 

[aleshanee]

How would we react if a Middle Eastern country recruited terrorists to bomb American installations in the Middle East? Well, we did nothing about it when American libraries were bombed in Egypt in 1954. The bombers were recruited by and acting on the behalf of Israel, but we didn't do anything about it, just like we did nothing about Israel's deliberate attack on the Liberty in 1967. Israeli Jewish historians refer to the 1954 bombings as the Lavon Affair.

The Lavon Affair

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

"On July 2, 1954, they went into action. They first blew up some post offices and a few days later, the American libraries in Cairo and Alexandria."

The Disturbing Legacy Of ‘Operation Susannah’ And The Lavon Affair

Ben Gurion used the broad public demand in Israel for a retaliatory action against Egypt to launch a February 28, 1955, attack on Gaza in which 39 Egyptians were killed and Israel suffered no casualti

www.jewishpress.com

"Gibli – and not the Mossad – commenced the high-risk operation on July 2, 1954, with the detonation of cell bombs at a post office in Alexandria, followed by the July 14 bombing of the libraries of the U.S. Information Agency in Alexandria and Cairo and a British-owned theater.

Lavon Affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't let me even get started on the affair of Jonathan Pollard who spied for Israel and was caught in 1985. All of this is okay, because Israel is the best friend we have in the Middle East, right?

no... none of it is okay..... it was all evil .... and yes israel is still the best friend we have in the middle east...... the countries around them - who they help keep in check - have done far worse to us.... .. even some of them are considered friends - but in a lesser way than israel is...

perfect freedom and a perfect state of being has no existence among mortals in this world....... people with wisdom know the world they live in and how to survive it.... even learning in time how to manage it or to make changes in it they want to see......... ....sitting back and doing nothing other than stewing in our own resentment or regret, does nothing but hurt us...... ..as our own history has shown us many times....

 

[biscuit1953]

Partial list of Bible verses that teach that the possession of the Promised Land by the Israelites was CONDITIONAL:

Genesis 17:8, 14 - The covenant and land grant were conditional on being circumcised.

Exodus 19:5 - The covenant was conditional on the obedience of the Israelites.

Numbers 14:30 - Entry to the Promised Land delayed for 40 years due to disobedience.

Deuteronomy 4:25-26 - Possession of the land is conditional on obeying God's judgments.

Deuteronomy 11:16-17 - Possession is conditional on observing God's statutes.

Joshua 23:15-16 - Israelites will perish from the land if they serve other gods.

1 Kings 9:6-9 and 2 Chronicles 7:19-22 - God will pluck them out of the land if they disobey.

2 Kings 21: 8-9 - Possession of the land is conditional on obedience to the Law of Moses.

Ezra 9:12-14 - Possession is conditional on not intermarrying with the heathen.

Nehemiah 1:8-9 - Possession of the land, and restoration after exile, are both conditional on keeping the Law of Moses.

Jeremiah 7:3-6 , 9:13-16 - Possession conditional on making a drastic change in their morals.

Jeremiah 44:22 - God kicked them out of the land due to their abominations.

Lamentations 1:10 - Protection from heathen taking over Jerusalem was conditional on Judah's obedience.

Ezekiel 33:24-26 - Hebrews were removed from their inheritance from Abraham because of their abominations.

Matthew 21:43, 23:38 - Christ decreed that the Kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews due to their rejection of the Messiah.

(If possession of the land was unconditional, this would mean that God broke His covenant when He decreed the removal of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC, then the southern kingdom of Judah in 586 BC, finally the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Surely we do not believe that God would break His covenant, do we)?

[Posted with apologies to those who do not like long posts]

You are mistaking the Palestinian Covenant which was a conditional covenant with the Abrahamic Covenant. The terms of the Palestinian Covenant (Deut 29:1-30:20) were with the Israelites who were about to enter the land of Palestine and if they broke the covenant they would lose the land. The blessings and cursings had to do with the obedience of the Jews. It also said that if they repented, they would be restored to the land and to prosperity.

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional and the prophecies in Ezekiel and Amos makes it clear that God would keep his promise to Abraham’s seed and regather the Jews once again to their land never to be driven out again (Amos 9:14-15). The purpose of God regathering the Jews back to their homeland was to sanctify God’s great name and to “let the heathen know that I am the Lord, saith the Lord God, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes” (Eze 36:21-24).

 

[voicecrying]

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional and the prophecies in Ezekiel and Amos makes it clear that God would keep his promise to Abraham’s seed and regather the Jews once again to their land never to be driven out again (Amos 9:14-15).

Who is Abraham's seed?

 

[biscuit1953]

Who is Abraham's seed?

The literal descendants of Abraham; ethnic Israel. The land grant was literal (not spiritual) given to the literal (not spiritual) descendants of Abraham. RC Sproul acknowledged that Calvin, Hodge and other Covenant Theologians believed in the conversion of ethnic Israel. "If you believe in a literal Adam you’re going to have to believe in the salvation of ethnic Israel; same book, same literal reality." Charles Spurgeon also made it very clear that God would restore the Jews to their land. Christians are spiritual descendants of Abraham.

 

[Ransom]

Because the New Covenant replaced the Mosaic Covenant not the Abrahamic Covenant which was an everlasting Covenant.

Just like circumcision was (Gen. 17:18).

 

[biscuit1953]

Just like circumcision was (Gen. 17:18).

Yes, you are right. Physical circumcision was in the Abrahamic Covenant to distinguish them from the heathen nations just like the physical land grant. As Christians, we aren't physical descendants, but we have been spiritually circumcised (not outwardly), but inwardly of the heart (Rom 2:24-29) which separates us from the world.

 

[Ransom]

Circumcision was an "everlasting covenant" and it came to a end.

So explain to us, exegetically, why the land promises given to Abraham (which, Scripture declares, God has already kept in full) are not an "everlasting covenant" in the same sense that circumcision was an "everlasting covenant."

 

[illinoisguy]

You are mistaking the Palestinian Covenant which was a conditional covenant with the Abrahamic Covenant.

In my post, I made no mention of either the Palestinian nor the Abrahamic covenant, so what mistake did I make with regard to these covenants? All I did was cite a lot of verses teaching that the possession of the land by the Israelites, under whatever covenant, was and still is conditional.

The land grant was literal (not spiritual)

Yes, the land grant was literal, and it was literally fulfilled, Joshua 21:43-45, Nehemiah 9:8, 22-24. Mission accomplished - It's not clear to me what more we need to do to fulfill that promise.

The literal descendants of Abraham; ethnic Israel.

According to Galatians 3:6-8, all believers today are Abraham's seed, not just ethnic Israel.

the prophecies in Ezekiel and Amos makes it clear that God would keep his promise to Abraham’s seed and regather the Jews once again to their land never to be driven out again (Amos 9:14-15).

According to Acts 15:13-19, the prophecy of Amos 9:14-15 was fulfilled by the conversion of the Gentiles and their calling into the churches of God.

I hope this helps

 

[biscuit1953]

Circumcision was an "everlasting covenant" and it came to a end.

So explain to us, exegetically, why the land promises given to Abraham (which, Scripture declares, God has already kept in full) are not an "everlasting covenant" in the same sense that circumcision was an "everlasting covenant."

The Church has never been given a land grant. Paul explains how our circumcision is spiritual of the heart. The difference between Israel and the Church is they were promised physical blessings such as good health, material prosperity and such if they obeyed the commandments whereas the Christians are promised "spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph 1:3). That is why the prosperity preachers can get away with their false teachings of name it and claim it for Christians. We aren't promised the physical blessings Israel had as long as they were obedient.

 

[Ransom]

According to Acts 15:13-19, the prophecy of Amos 9:14-15 was fulfilled by the conversion of the Gentiles and their calling into the churches of God.

Which biscuit already knows, because he has been informed of this before. Unfortunately, he simply passes over Scripture that contradicts his assumptions and pretends it isn't there. (This is a problem you see frequently in Dispensatilnalism: the Scofield Bible's notes on Joel inexplicably ignore Acts 2.)

Biscuit needs a dose of intellectual honesty.

 

[Ransom]

The Church has never been given a land grant.

Ignoratio elenchi. I never said it was.

I asked for exegesis, not assumptions.

I have previously shown, in direct response to your own claims, that the plain sense of Scripture says God faithfully kept all the promises of land he made to Israel. There are no promises awaiting fulfillment in the future. As you usually do when you get caught contradicting Scripture, you simply ignored it because it doesn't square with your presuppositional commitment to Dispensationalism. I guess Hy now you hoped I'd forgotten.

By contrast, while I freely offer Scripture in support of my arguments, when I likewise ask you for scriptural exegesis, you resort to more assumptions.

 

[Ekklesian]

Because the New Covenant replaced the Mosaic Covenant not the Abrahamic Covenant which was an everlasting Covenant. The land belongs to Israel.

What was it that Abraham looked for, according to Hebrews?

 

[biscuit1953]

In my post, I made no mention of either the Palestinian nor the Abrahamic covenant, so what mistake did I make with regard to these covenants? All I did was cite was a lot of verses teaching that the possession of the land by the Israelites, under whatever covenant, was and still is conditional.



Yes, the land grant was literal, and it was literally fulfilled, Joshua 21:43-45, Nehemiah 9:8, 22-24. Mission accomplished - It's not clear to me what more we need to do to fulfill that promise.



According to Galatians 3:6-8, all believers today are Abraham's seed, not just ethnic Israel.



According to Acts 15:13-19, the prophecy of Amos 9:14-15 was fulfilled by the conversion of the Gentiles and their calling into the churches of God.

I hope this helps

Josh 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
Josh 1:4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
Josh 1:5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Josh 1:6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.

This reaffirmation of the Abrahamic Covenant was only partially fulfilled (see Josh 1:3) because they never possessed all the land promised to Abraham. God gave the land to Israel in promise but it only became theirs in reality when they took possession of it and their possession was incomplete (Josh 13:2-6; 15:13, etc.).

Josh 1:11 Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which the LORD your God giveth you to possess it.

There is a difference between owning something and possessing something. All things are stored up for us in Christ (Eph 1:3), but it is only as they are accepted by faith that we can be said to have them as our own. Most of us “own” far more than we actually “possess.”

Amos 9:14-15 was a very specific prophecy concerning the regathering of Israel never to be driven out again. That has never happened until 1948 when they were put back in their land. I’ll quote John MacArthur,

Acts 15:15-17 “James quotes Amos’ prophecy (9:11-12) of the millennial kingdom to prove that Gentile salvation was not contrary to God’s plan for Israel, in fact the kingdom God’s messengers will announce salvation to the Gentiles (Zech 8:20-23). Gentiles...called by my name. James’ point is that Amos makes no mention of Gentiles becoming Jewish proselytes. If Gentiles can be saved without becoming Jews in the kingdom, there is no need for Gentiles to become proselytes in the present age."

It comes down to whether God has cast away His people forever and Romans 11 is very clear that is not the case. At times it is difficult to distinguish a literal interpretation from a spiritual. In Matthew 24:3 for example, Jesus was plainly explaining what would take place at the end of the world (age) and it is obvious that it did not happen in A.D. 70. I have been humbled many times in the past and I’m sure I will be in the future but I will be the first to admit I can be wrong about something. I’m just giving you my understanding of this subject which is imperfect.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Yes, you are right. Physical circumcision was in the Abrahamic Covenant to distinguish them from the heathen nations just like the physical land grant. As Christians, we aren't physical descendants, but we have been spiritually circumcised (not outwardly), but inwardly of the heart (Rom 2:24-29) which separates us from the world.

It was then, and it is now the inward or spiritual circumcision that matters! This was the point that Paul was making in Romans 2. It is what separates those who are from those who are not of the seed of Abraham.

And just for the record (in case it whooshed over anyone's head), those who are "In Christ" are also "In Abraham" (and vice versa).

They are not all Israel which are of Israel (Romans 9:6).

 

[Ransom]

This reaffirmation of the Abrahamic Covenant was only partially fulfilled (see Josh 1:3) because they never possessed all the land promised to Abraham.

Well, there it is.

When Joshua says:

You know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. (Josh. 23:14)​

we are meant to understand that "all have come to pass" means "some have not come to pass"; and "not one of them has failed" means "some have failed and await a future fulfillment."

Dispensationalists boast about the "consistent literalism" of their hermeneutic. Yet here we have a dyed-in-the-wool Dispensationalist not only ignoring the plain and literal sense of the Scriptures, but directly and formally contradicting what they plainly affirm--because it doesn't jive with their faulty presuppositions about biblical prophecy.

 

[biscuit1953]

Well, there it is.

When Joshua says:

You know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. (Josh. 23:14)​

we are meant to understand that "all have come to pass" means "some have not come to pass"; and "not one of them has failed" means "some have failed and await a future fulfillment."

Dispensationalists boast about the "consistent literalism" of their hermeneutic. Yet here we have a dyed-in-the-wool Dispensationalist not only ignoring the plain and literal sense of the Scriptures, but directly and formally contradicting what they plainly affirm--because it doesn't jive with their faulty presuppositions about biblical prophecy.

The fact that Israel has never possessed the land grant given to Abraham which is about 300,000 square miles (current Israel is only 8,600 square miles) one must attempt to reconcile scripture. The fact that you will symbolize scripture such as in Revelation 20 and Matthew 24 to justify your position and call me dishonest for sincerely trying to understand these things is sad. Is RC Sproul dishonest because he understood some things differently than you? What about Spurgeon? You posted some great things about Calvinism that had an impact on my belief system. If I don't agree with you 100% does that make me dishonest? No two men will ever agree on everything.

 

[Ransom]

The fact that Israel has never possessed the land grant given to Abraham

Your "fact" isn't a fact.

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, [19] the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, [20] the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, [21] the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.” (Gen. 15:18-21)​

Josh. 23:14 affirms that the Israelites received "all the good things" God had promised them.

David re-conquered territory lost in border skirmishes during the time of the judges:

David also defeated Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to restore his power at the river Euphrates. (2 Sam. 8:3)​

Which his son Solomon ruled over:

Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life. (1 Ki. 4:21)​

After the return from exile, Nehemiah affirmed that God had kept his promise:

You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous. (Neh. 9:8)​

So Scripture says God kept all his promises. The Dispensationalists say he only kept some of them. Should I believe the Dispensationalists, or the Scripture?

As you well know, I have posted this same material before, in response to your false assertions. You ignored it then, and I have every confidence you'll ignore it now.

The fact that you will symbolize scripture such as in Revelation 20 and Matthew 24

Again, your "fact" is not a fact, since I have done nothing of the kind.

and call me dishonest for sincerely trying to understand these things is sad.

Meanwhile, you invent positions I do not take and make a big show of taking offence when I call you out for it. What word would you prefer to "dishonest"? How about "liar"?

RC Sproul dishonest because he understood some things differently than you?

Never mentioned him.

What about Spurgeon?

Never mentioned him.

Why do you even keep bringing these things up? You're doing nothing to dissuade me that you have a load of copypasta on your hard drive that you just paste into these threads, regardless of their relevance. You'll be bring up 70 AD next, right?

I don't agree with you 100% does that make me dishonest?

No. Posting falsehoods does.

 

[Ransom]

By the way, we know what Dispensationalists mean when they accuse non-Dispensationalists of "spiritualizing" or "symbolizing" the Scriptures.

It means that when the Bible interprets itself, we take that interpretation at face value. When Joshua says God has kept all his promises (Josh. 23:14), it means God has kept all his promises, not some of them.

When Paul says the promises made to Abraham find their fulfillment in Christ and those who are in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike (Gal. 3), it means the promises made to Abraham find their fulfillment in Christ and those in Christ, not unbelieving Israelites.

When Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant with his blood (Luke 22:20), it means the New Covenant is inaugurated, not just a "better Covenant," with the New Covenant yet to be fulfilled in a future kingdom age.

The Dispensationalist "literal" hermeneutic sees a promise or a prophecy that Scripture itself declares a present reality, and asserts instead that it is for an indefinite and unrealized future. Who's really doing the "spiritualizing"?