So now that the bear is upon us, what new hat trick will the media pull?

[TomMcC]

As an answer to you both, even early dispensationalism didn't see the coming of modern Israel, since it started with John Nelson Darby in the 1830's and then was more developed by C.I. Schofield later on. On top of that the true beginnings of futurism/dispensationalism started in the 1500's with the Jesuit Francisco Ribera as a counter to the historicism (a view that sees Revelation as unfolding history of the world and church) of protestants reformers who almost to a man thought that the papacy was "The" Antichrist. Another Jesuit Luis de Alcasar also trying to counter the reformation came up with preterism. Both eschatologys designed to either put the fulfillment of Revelation and other scripture mostly in the past (around 70 AD) or mostly in the future, thus denying that the Roman papacy was antichrist. Generally speaking, the idea that modern Israel was the beginning of some sort of prophectic clock started to be popularized by people like Hal Lindsay and his "Late Great Planet Earth" book. What I call rapture mania started around then. As for modern Israel, the gathering of the Jews to the land was always predicated on them being faithful to God, modern Israel isn't even remotely faithful to God, let alone Christ. I will say though, that since I believe that God is not finished at all with national Israel (Romans 11) and from my view will convert Israel in mass to Christ someday (a great sign to the gentile believers and beginning to the millennium)(I don't disagree with everything dispy's say) that God in His providence has been preserving the Jews, even though they have been set upon many times in most heinous ways, for His future blessing of them again.

And no, I still think that God's hand is still quite heavy upon the Jews, 1948 not being a lifting of that heavy hand. For the most part Jews want nothing to do with the God of Moses, and especially nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. They are generally atheistic leftists...in my view, that's not a blessing from God.

[okie]

As an answer to you both, even early dispensationalism didn't see the coming of modern Israel, since it started with John Nelson Darby in the 1830's and then was more developed by C.I. Schofield later on. On top of that the true beginnings of futurism/dispensationalism started in the 1500's with the Jesuit Francisco Ribera as a counter to the historicism (a view that sees Revelation as unfolding history of the world and church) of protestants reformers who almost to a man thought that the papacy was "The" Antichrist. Another Jesuit Luis de Alcasar also trying to counter the reformation came up with preterism. Both eschatologys designed to either put the fulfillment of Revelation and other scripture mostly in the past (around 70 AD) or mostly in the future, thus denying that the Roman papacy was antichrist. Generally speaking, the idea that modern Israel was the beginning of some sort of prophectic clock started to be popularized by people like Hal Lindsay and his "Late Great Planet Earth" book. What I call rapture mania started around then. As for modern Israel, the gathering of the Jews to the land was always predicated on them being faithful to God, modern Israel isn't even remotely faithful to God, let alone Christ. I will say though, that since I believe that God is not finished at all with national Israel (Romans 11) and from my view will convert Israel in mass to Christ someday (a great sign to the gentile believers and beginning to the millennium)(I don't disagree with everything dispy's say) that God in His providence has been preserving the Jews, even though they have been set upon many times in most heinous ways, for His future blessing of them again.

And no, I still think that God's hand is still quite heavy upon the Jews, 1948 not being a lifting of that heavy hand. For the most part Jews want nothing to do with the God of Moses, and especially nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. They are generally atheistic leftists...in my view, that's not a blessing from God.

There's clear evidence of dispensational systems going all the way back. There's one in the Book of Enoch, and the Essenes had their own system that's at least several thousand years old. Look up a guy on youtube named Ken Johnson. He has a lot of fascinating videos where he goes through and examines prophecy from the perspective of many obscure ancient sources.

[TomMcC]

There's clear evidence of dispensational systems going all the way back. There's one in the Book of Enoch, and the Essenes had their own system that's at least several thousand years old. Look up a guy on youtube named Ken Johnson. He has a lot of fascinating videos where he goes through and examines prophecy from the perspective of many obscure ancient sources.

Dispensationalists have been trying to prove for decades that this theology is present in the fathers...I highly disagree. You can find shades of historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism in the father but, even historical premils reject the dispy form of premil is ancient. Even if it was to be found in the fathers it still doesn't mean they were right, that goes for the other mill positions. The Bible alone is the final word. As a side note I hold to a historicist postmil position. As for the Book of Enoch, it's not canonical so it's usefulness in such matters, along with every other view on doctrine it might present, is very much not good. It isn't God speaking. Again whatever the Essenes had to say may be of historical interest, but were their views agreeable to the word of God, would they have the book of Revelation? No. So at best their views would have been severally limited.

[okie]

Dispensationalists have been trying to prove for decades that this theology is present in the fathers...I highly disagree. You can find shades of historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism in the father but, even historical premils reject the dispy form of premil is ancient. Even if it was to be found in the fathers it still doesn't mean they were right, that goes for the other mill positions. The Bible alone is the final word. As a side note I hold to a historicist postmil position. As for the Book of Enoch, it's not canonical so it's usefulness in such matters, along with every other view on doctrine it might present, is very much not good. It isn't God speaking. Again whatever the Essenes had to say may be of historical interest, but were their views agreeable to the word of God, would they have the book of Revelation? No. So at best their views would have been severally limited.

The point is that Jewish prophecy has always presented itself in a dispensational way, from the very beginning. How did Noah know the flood was coming? Did God call him on the coconut phone and give him an FYI? No, of course not, he listened to the prophets of his day. Namely Enoch. There's a lot of oral tradition that precedes the written Bible. Maybe what survives got corrupted over the millennia, but that doesn't mean it's useless.

Even in the Bible there's shades of dispensations. You could go all the way back to Genesis where God says the heavenly bodies are for times and seasons. Or to Daniel where you see all of the earth's history broken up into various empires that would rise and fall, beginning with Babylon. We only have one empire left to go, BTW.

[TomMcC]

The point is that Jewish prophecy has always presented itself in a dispensational way, from the very beginning. How did Noah know the flood was coming? Did God call him on the coconut phone and give him an FYI? No, of course not, he listened to the prophets of his day. Namely Enoch. There's a lot of oral tradition that precedes the written Bible. Maybe what survives got corrupted over the millennia, but that doesn't mean it's useless.

Even in the Bible there's shades of dispensations. You could go all the way back to Genesis where God says the heavenly bodies are for times and seasons. Or to Daniel where you see all of the earth's history broken up into various empires that would rise and fall, beginning with Babylon. We only have one empire left to go, BTW.

The idea that there are certain dispensations or periods of time when God does somethings is not the same thing as dispensationalism. Dispensations simply means a period of time. Dispensationalism is a heterodox, at best, theology of how God deals with men in different times. It's so heterodox that classical dispensationalism taught that people were saved in a different way in the OT . Apart from Christ. That's a huge problem and neo-dispys like John MacArthur know its a huge problem. The dispy view of the relationship between faithful Israel of the OT and the NT church is another problem, so that dispys like John Hagee are out there spewing that Jews don't need Jesus because they have their own special and separate covenant with God that doesn't require the prophesied messiah. As for Noah and what he knew, you do realize that God spoke to Noah about these things, Genesis 6, and we don't know what Enoch told his great grand son Noah ,why, because it's not recorded in the scriptures. The book of Enoch may or may not have any truth from God in it. The orthodox ancient Jews didn't consider it God's word and neither does any actual protestant. Only the Roman church does, and I don't think the Roman church gets much of anything right. As for faithful prophets in the days of Noah, again, we have a reference to Enoch being a prophet in the book of Jude, but we don't know for sure in what context Jude is quoting these passages. Here is a couple explanations of this...https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...blical-sources. What we do know is that Enoch didn't write the book of Enoch, since Enoch lived thousands of years before the book of Enoch was written. Jude could have been quoting the book because it's useful to his argument, much like Paul's quoting of pagan poets in Act 17 like the link describes. Both Jude and Paul knowing the the Book of Enoch and the pagan poets were not inspired. Back to Noah, nobody but Noah and his immediate family survived the flood. So at that time there were only 8 faithful people in the world, there were zero faithful prophets. If there were, God would have saved them also on the ark.

[okie]

The idea that there are certain dispensations or periods of time when God does somethings is not the same thing as dispensationalism. Dispensations simply means a period of time. Dispensationalism is a heterodox, at best, theology of how God deals with men in different times. It's so heterodox that classical dispensationalism taught that people were saved in a different way in the OT . Apart from Christ. That's a huge problem and neo-dispys like John MacArthur know its a huge problem. The dispy view of the relationship between faithful Israel of the OT and the NT church is another problem, so that dispys like John Hagee are out there spewing that Jews don't need Jesus because they have their own special and separate covenant with God that doesn't require the prophesied messiah. As for Noah and what he knew, you do realize that God spoke to Noah about these things, Genesis 6, and we don't know what Enoch told his great grand son Noah ,why, because it's not recorded in the scriptures. The book of Enoch may or may not have any truth from God in it. The orthodox ancient Jews didn't consider it God's word and neither does any actual protestant. Only the Roman church does, and I don't think the Roman church gets much of anything right. As for faithful prophets in the days of Noah, again, we have a reference to Enoch being a prophet in the book of Jude, but we don't know for sure in what context Jude is quoting these passages. Here is a couple explanations of this...https://www.desiringgod.org/intervie...blical-sources. What we do know is that Enoch didn't write the book of Enoch, since Enoch lived thousands of years before the book of Enoch was written. Jude could have been quoting the book because it's useful to his argument, much like Paul's quoting of pagan poets in Act 17 like the link describes. Both Jude and Paul knowing the the Book of Enoch and the pagan poets were not inspired. Back to Noah, nobody but Noah and his immediate family survived the flood. So at that time there were only 8 faithful people in the world, there were zero faithful prophets. If there were, God would have saved them also on the ark.

Well the Bible is pretty clear that those who kept the law as it pertained to them (different rules for Jews vs. Gentiles) went to Abraham's Bosom, referred to in the NT as Paradise, where Jesus witnessed to them while He was dead.

[TomMcC]

Well the Bible is pretty clear that those who kept the law as it pertained to them (different rules for Jews vs. Gentiles) went to Abraham's Bosom, referred to in the NT as Paradise, where Jesus witnessed to them while He was dead.

Nobody was saved based upon keeping the law, not in the OT or NT. That is Christ's and Paul's arguments like Roman 3,4 and Galatians 3, also read Galatians 2:16. God doesn't grade on the curved, He requires perfected obedience. The whole sacrificial system of the OT showed forth the many sins of the people and pointed to Christ as that perfect sacrifice to come, the just for the unjust, unless you think the shed blood of bulls and goats would actually remove sin. Even Moses sinned against God...broke God's law, he was not allowed to fully enter the promised land because of that sin. There hasn't been a Jew or gentile that has kept God's law...ever. You are now postulating two ways of salvation...law keeping and faith in Christ. That is a rank heresy denying the gospel. The gospel that was progressively revealed starting in Genesis 3:15. Jesus in fact said the OT was essentially about Him in Luke 24:25-27. Also read Hebrews 11, read about the faith ....in Christ....of the OT saints.

As concerning the ceremonial laws given to Moses and the various judicial laws given to Israel (the moral essence of those judicial laws being of a moral nature and still binding), yes they have been done away with. The moral law, like the 10 commandments...not a chance. God's moral law is binding on everyone, everywhere, all the time.

If your pastor is actually teaching, with the approval of your elders, that OT saints were saved by keeping the law, I would strongly urge you to flee, they don't know what a gross heresy they are teaching. I wouldn't even consider them brethren, that's how bad that teaching is...it's cultic.

[okie]

Nobody was saved based upon keeping the law, not in the OT or NT. That is Christ's and Paul's arguments like Roman 3,4 and Galatians 3, also read Galatians 2:16. God doesn't grade on the curved, He requires perfected obedience. The whole sacrificial system of the OT showed forth the many sins of the people and pointed to Christ as that perfect sacrifice to come, the just for the unjust, unless you think the shed blood of bulls and goats would actually remove sin. Even Moses sinned against God...broke God's law, he was not allowed to fully enter the promised land because of that sin. There hasn't been a Jew or gentile that has kept God's law...ever. You are now postulating two ways of salvation...law keeping and faith in Christ. That is a rank heresy denying the gospel. The gospel that was progressively revealed starting in Genesis 3:15. Jesus in fact said the OT was essentially about Him in Luke 24:25-27. Also read Hebrews 11, read about the faith ....in Christ....of the OT saints.

As concerning the ceremonial laws given to Moses and the various judicial laws given to Israel (the moral essence of those judicial laws being of a moral nature and still binding), yes they have been done away with. The moral law, like the 10 commandments...not a chance. God's moral law is binding on everyone, everywhere, all the time.

If your pastor is actually teaching, with the approval of your elders, that OT saints were saved by keeping the law, I would strongly urge you to flee, they don't know what a gross heresy they are teaching. I wouldn't even consider them brethren, that's how bad that teaching is...it's cultic.

Going to Paradise isn't synonymous with salvation. What I'm getting at is that those who died prior to Christ were given the same chance as those who were blessed to hear the gospel in their lifetime.

But that doesn't change the fact that in the OT they were living under the law. And they were required to make sacrifices for sin. That's why Jesis said that after Him there would be no more sacrifice for sin. That now He's the sole source of forgiveness for sins. The Bible also says that God the Father has remitted all judgement to the Son.

[TomMcC]

Going to Paradise isn't synonymous with salvation. What I'm getting at is that those who died prior to Christ were given the same chance as those who were blessed to hear the gospel in their lifetime.

But that doesn't change the fact that in the OT they were living under the law. And they were required to make sacrifices for sin. That's why Jesis said that after Him there would be no more sacrifice for sin. That now He's the sole source of forgiveness for sins. The Bible also says that God the Father has remitted all judgement to the Son.

And what did the sacrifices point to? Who was the the ultimate passover lamb? There is grace and law in both testaments. Like Paul says in Galatians 3, the law was given 400 years after the promise to Abraham, the father of the Jews, for what...salvation...absolutely not...but to show the requirements of God for holy living, the law has absolutely no power to save as argued by the Apostle, all it can do is condemn. Are NT saints called to holy living, every bit as much as OT saints. You, as a NT saint, are you required to keep the 10 commandments? Do I need to quote the many many places in the NT where we are commanded to obey the law? Did any of the OT saints keep the law perfectly? Not even one. Why? because we and they were and are sinners, law breakers. We are, like them, to obey the law, not to somehow put God in our debt, but out of love for Him for His mercy and grace showed to us in the coming messiah (for the OT saints, Jew and gentile) and the come messiah (for the NT saints...Jew and gentile).

The OT saints were saved on the exact same foundation as NT saints...the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Where are the departed OT saints? The exact same place as the thief on the cross, with Jesus in paradise....heaven...awaiting the resurrection.

[yoni]

To try and steer this back to the original intent of the first post.

Putin has moved a large number of fighter bombers from bases in Eastern Russian, to Belarus. This will put Kiev in range of these planes. He also has moved anti aircraft systems to protect these aircraft.

This could mark a critical change from a "limited incursion" , to a full blown take over.

I have not changed my mind, war is not needed. What is needed is to assure Putin that NATO will not expand.

How would the USA view the placing of Chinese troops in Mexico and nations through out the Caribbean? It would rightly be viewed as a threat, to the USA.

So why can't the reverse be true and instead of political types of both parties pushing a position that will bring about a war, to pushing a position that would remove Causa Belli.

Lastly it is clear that at least France and Germany will not support a war in Ukraine. So the 2 biggest players in NATO are not on our side.