I believe topcat's point is, "How do you know this applies directly to here and now?" You’re looking at anecdotic evidence around you and this may be giving the wrong picture.
The early Christians thought our Lord Jesus' return was imminent and He had barely left. They were wrong. Undoubtedly they thought they were interpreting the signs correctly as well. I remember reading about some Christians back in the late 1800s who thought Christ was returning based upon “the signs” and sold everything they had, donned white sheets and went and stood on a hilltop. They were disappointed. Hal Lindsey back in the ’70 thought the Soviet Union was the “Anti-Christ” and would rise up in some apocalypsic war. Well, he’s revised that several times. Good thing we don’t follow the OT and stone people who state such untrue things. On the other hand perhaps people wouldn’t be quite so eager to put forth ideas if we did.
Personally I think our Lord Jesus’ return is imminent not because of Israel being reformed or the temple being rebuilt; but simply because of the corruption now taking place in the church. But maybe I’m just an old sour puss. There have been dark days in the church (and in the nation of Israel) before and I don’t know if God will rise up another Martin Luther to drive the church back on its correct footing. Or perhaps it isn’t as dark as it was in the 11th century. One simply cannot know based upon evidence around him.
Until the futurists can account for this fatal flaw in their theory it cannot be taken seriously.
Again, read the Isaiah passage. It states very clearly that God would reassemble Israel for the second time--not the third, or fourth--after the Messiah had become known to the Gentiles. Ergo, Isaiah can't be referring to the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles respectively (particularly since no one was "regathered" from the Assyrian captivity), nor could he be referring to anything before the Apostolic period. Nor has there been any other regathering between 70 AD and 1948 that could have been the object of the prophecy. That leaves the Israel of today.
Nor could the Israel of today disappear and then another state return in its place, since again the Lord, through the prophet, says very clearly that after the second regathering, righteousness (through the Messiah) would rule in Zion (see chap. 12).
I presented Ezekiel's prediction because it demonstrates that God said very clearly that the regathering would begin before His Spirit was put on the people of Israel as a whole, which means before the whole nation accepted the New Covenant predicted in Jer. 31, the covenant which you and I, grafted into Israel's root, now enjoy.
To date, neither of you have posted a logical, Biblical refutation of my position, nor any "objective" reason to believe that the Israel of today is not what is referred to by the prophets. Simply saying, "Nuh-uh, show me more," is not a refutation or even an argument.
Frankly, I understand why you are having difficulty accepting this. The existence of Israel is an enormous embarrassment to the entire world of Replacement Theology (or Supracessationism, or Reform Theology, or whatever you choose to call it). It's easier to simply claim that something isn't true than to adjust our theology and agendas in accordance with God's will. It was easier for the Pharisees and Sadducees that wouldn't accept Yeshua the Messiah and had Him crucified to rid themselves of an inconvenience to their deeply-held theologies too.
But for those of us who have never accepted that God would break the least of His promises, the existence of Israel today stands and will continue to stand as evidence of God's grace even to those who reject His provision in the Messiah and the faithfulness of all His promises, as well as a marker of how late the hour is.