Oh, get off this silly carp. You should know very well I wasn't going to stop responding to you on this topic. You are th mouthpiece for a sacred cow, one built out of consensus instead of evidence.
Oh, no, I wouldn't think of it.
Good. Plenty of good hard challenges to this mindset was lost the last thread the tactic was used on.
Read chapter 12, and you will see the Lord's return in vs.10. That hasn't happened yet. Chapter 13 follows chapter 12. And Chapter 13:9 hasn't happened yet either. I know scripture is a mystery to you, but you ought to try reading it once in a while.
I mean, specifically where in the future. There is no mention of waiting until what you call the Millennium, especially since you don't know the logistics of that event, unless you can interpret symbology with confidence.
The future could happen in this world, in a way that, perhaps by revelation of some kind, or unambiguous records being uncovered, makes the knowledge of all these seeds of Abraham who know not what they are public in a way that can't be covered up.
Happening during a Millennium is your, and the camp of thought where you reside's, theory, and that's all it is.
The Tribulation, Matt.24:29-it says that right in the passage. Now, I am not going to do your reading for you anymore. You clearly a very lazy person when it comes to actually studying anything, thinking that your great 'reasoning' abilities are sufficient enough to forgo actual reading.
Thank you for your assessment. But you have already posted this and I have read it. I see no evidence that the reunion of Israel and Judah reuniting during this Millennium.
I'm trying to get you to show me something that relates the two.
No, what I am refuting is the myth that Israelites are not Jews, they are both the same and are called the same, since they have both intermingled together as a people and do not know any longer their individual tribes.
And I've been refuting the myth that all tribes are comprehended by the tiny number of Jews. Again, that is your theory. It is what you believe. And there is no specific evidence for it. And it doesn't make sense along side history, prophecy, God's promises to the seed of Abraham and Biblical authority.
t doesn't have to be that far into the Millennium. A couple of centuries will repopulate the earth as well as Israel. As for Revelation, the symbolism is explained in the Old Testament and it is clear that a Millennial reign will occur after a great Tribulation. You just don't want to deal with what prophecy actually says.
It doesn't have to be in what you call the Millennium at all.
If only a couple of centuries will repopulate Israel, then 6 centuries will repopulate in spades, maybe unto the sands of the sea, do you agree?
Israel is the sands of the sea, now. We don't need to wait until any Millennium.
I agree that the thousand year reign of Christ will come after tribulation, but folks that think they're going to be raptured up beforehand will miss it, yes?
Nothing in scripture mentions anything that might lead one to think that the fulfilling of Hosea will wait until Christ's return. There is good sense in the notion that Judah and Israel will have to be reunited in order for Christ to return.
It hasn't happened, but it will. And it can, given enough time and perfect environment.
Ok, wait around and see.
So, it makes alot more sense then to depend on your myth that the Israelites are someone else, like the Americans and British! LOL!
My evidence is a lot stronger than your evidence. Mainly because your position is a consensus based on wishes of certain groups that haven't studied the issue enough to know anything else to believe.
And some that would loose much conceptual power, and much specialness, if brothers under the covenant were as common as star in the sky.
Most of the world is going to be destroyed as well in the Tribulation as well, so there is not going to be anyone left that will constitute the sands of the seas.
I believe the Angel said the third part.
You just want to deny the fact of the Tribulation occurring and the effects it is going to have on the world, which the Lord made very clear in Matt.24.
I'll wager that these events will come down in a totally different way than you think.
I have to admit, your ignorance of prophecy is really mind-numbing. The dead in Christ will rise (1Cor.15) and they will be rulers in the Millennial kingdom, with Christ as the head, as the son of David (Ps.89).
The dead in Christ will rise in their spiritual bodies. Remember Paul describing how we will lose the corruptible body and put on one of incorruption?
That being so, what difference in the numbers of Israel, and how will it bless the nations of the Earth. What even will a nation mean?
No, you have adopted your idiotic theory because you do not know any prophecy, Bible, history or logic. What you are talking about is simply fables based on ignorance of the truth.
Blah, blah, blah.
On the contrary, I am describing prophecy.
You cannot assume anything of the sought, since the capital city of Samaria when it fell had only 27,000 people in it. God was whittling down the Northern Kingdom for years before the final deportation. So once again, your theory has no historical support, only conjecture that disregards the historical facts.
I've already described what 27,000 "deported" meant, and what the rest of the Israelites were used for in a prior post you haven't had time to respond to yet. No significant numbers were reduced, and we had 6 centuries for them to grow even greater until the birth of Christ. So I'll not repeat myself here.
God did no whittling, unless it was of knowledge of inheritance.
No, I don't have to prove anything.
You have to overcome prima facie evidence, as I explained in the last post in this set.
You have to prove that there were large numbers deported-which you can't.
I did. You haven't gotten to it yet.
You have to prove that those large numbers moved-which you can't.
Ditto. Already have.
You have to prove that those same tribes lost their memory of who they were and became someone else-which you can't.
Already have.
Now, I do not have to prove anything except to show that there is no a shred of historical fact to support your idiotic theory.
And you have not. That can be nailed down to other than ambiguous meaning.
It is up to you to prove any of those assertions listed. Since you cannot, your theory falls flat on its face. The number of Jews were scattered throughout Europe, in the Roman Empire and that is a well known fact.
That is correct. But the number of the seed of Abraham extant in Europe and elsewhere that are not called Jews and have no knowledge of their heritage is an emerging fact. You have already agreed to the essential portions of it.
Your assertion that there has to be a certain number of Jews to fulfill God's promise is a false premise that is not necessarily for God to fulfill God's Plan.
Not my assertion. Hosea's. And God's.
Try looking at Zech. 13:9. But as I said about you, your ignorance of the Bible is quite mind numbing as well as your inablity to read clear, plain English.
And what is the third part of the sands of the sea? The stars in the sky?
And Gentiles make up all nations. For added prove look up Isa.49:6 as well.
Isa 49: 6And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Nothing here about the Earth being all gentiles except the Jews.
Matter of a fact the "tribes of Jacob" haven't been, in all their 5 millions, a salvation unto the end of the Earth. The Jews have been looking out for themselves only.
Who has been the "salvation of the Earth" so far? who has been a "shining light"?
What they have lost is memory of their particular tribe, not that they are of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
This a notion you have stated and not given any evidence for. This is, again, a theory, merely a consensus. If, as you contend, that the Israelite tribes were absorbed into other peoples (I agree that some were), the seed of Abraham should be covering the earth after all these centuries, and only 5 million or so acknowledge being Israelites.
And once again, what any Jew says regarding his own tribe is irrelevant since he cannot know what tribe he is from-there are no records.
But, have you asked one, have your checked it out instead of just making an assumption? And have you told him he didn't know what he was talking about? I want to hear the story.
So, what tribe are you from, since you must think you are an Israelite?
I have no idea if I'm an Israelite or not. You may be one. If the "British Israelites" are right, neither of us is likely to know even if we are.
The remnants of Judah know, all right. They kept track of it during the Babylonian dwelling and have been to this day.
Oh, the Millennium is clearly laid out in the Old Testament, in many Books, so stop playing ignorant. It is clear that there will be a tribulation first and then a Millennial reign in which Hosea will be fulfilled. So, your theory that millions of Israelites must exist so that Hosea can be fufilled is just another stupid illconceived assertion on your part, not based on any correct reading of scripture.
Oh, I have no doubt that Christ's reign will come. But unlike you who has the key to Revelation, I don't know how, exactly, that will manifest.
We know there will be tribulation, but that is all we know. We don't know what form it will take and how it will play out. We know some of the effects, expressed entirely in symbology.
That Hosea will be fulfilled then is your theory with no scriptural backing.
If the seeds of Abraham have inundated the Earth after all these centuries of being spread around, it is unlikely that the fulfilling thereof will wait until Christ returns. Matter of fact, Christ's return may just as credibly be conditioned on the fulfilling of Hosea.
And what part of those verses do you have a hard time understanding? Clearly there will be a time of Jacobs trouble (tribulation) and before that the Church will be removed since the church is not Jacob-Israel. [ that an Anti-Christ will arise that will come to power in peace, but will soon wage war against Israel (Dan.11, Rev.13) Daniel 11 could be talking about anything. There is nothing there about an Anti-Christ. Verses 11:36:45 are referring to the future Anti-Christ. But in order to know that you would have actually read your Bible a few times.
These versus link Hosea to being fulfilled at Christ's return to you? Please explain.
Jacob's trouble may not be the tribulation spoken about in Revelation. That is something you add to the words of the scripture.
This is all pretrib rapture crap. You have lots of dissenters and few believers in the world. Because yuo say it, that does not make it truth. There are as many passages against the rapture as there are for it. And the ones for ti, in my opinion, are ambiguous with other interpretations.
"Refers to" is another way to say that is how you interpret it.
Revelation speaks of the Anti-Christ and Chapter 12 refers to Israel. As for the symbolism of Revelation, it can be understood if one takes the time to compare the verses with others with the same symbolism, but for those who would prefer to live in a fantasy world, that would be too much trouble.
Doesn't seem to be any references to Israel in Revelation.
Understanding the symbolism in Revelation is pure vanity. Everybody has an interpretation, and most use the rest of the Bible to support theirs. Show me how your's carries any more credibility.
The Stone made without hands destroys the anti-Christ's Kingdom, that is Christ. Surely you have Christ referred to as the Stone (1Pe.2:6)?
You're saying that the statue is the Anti-Christ and Christ hitting it on its clay feet is the destruction thereof? This is an interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream.
I would take it to mean that a extremely powerful nation founded on weak principles and amoral ideals can be toppled by simple truth (stone cut without hands). Why would Nebuchadnezzar be dreaming about Christ killing the Anti-Christ?
I think this is another example of letting pre conditioning into an ideal clouding the vision and understanding.
I am not wary about using Revelation, since it is the word of God and is very clear to those who actually read the Bible and not use the Bible to make up false theologies.
It is very clear to various and sundry nutcases who have a prior accepted conviction to prove.
No, they stand up very well, But you actually to have know scripture to understand that-which you don't.
Sez you, in your enlightened condition of superior knowledge and wisdom.
Now, I am using the Bible the way it is suppose to be used, comparing scripture with scripture not ignoring those that don't fit my theological paradigm-which is what you are doing
And casting your pre conditioned acceptance of belief on it, like many representing a belief system do. Lumberyard.
And what makes you think anyone could be considered reasonable who would put forth a theory that has not facts such as yours? You are not reasonable, so your views on what is reasonable, and anything else mean nothing to me. You have shown yourself ignorant of the Bible, history, reading ability, and logic.
But my theory has hard, written facts recorded during the events by the people who participated in them.
You seem to be basing yours on some consensus. And inteprpreting scripture on a precondition belief in a pretribulation rapture, a conviction that God want to save His loved ones physical pain, which He has never done in scripture. God has used pain in scripture to teach and temper.
You have given nothing to refute those scriptures except that you do not believe they say what they do. Your refutation is the same as it is with all facts given to you-you simply brush them off and supply nothing in their place except empty rhetoric and hot air.
I just did. Above. and many times in this conversation. You have offered nothing material, except some misunderstanding of a history text.
Look them up, I am not here to teach you Bible.,/I>
I have. I've read them. They can say what you claim only if read with pre conceived idea and conviction.
And I am going to tell you once more, that the question is a moot one since the 'great nation's' of the world do not constitute the Israelites.
I gave you an "if", and you still avoided the question.
If you are saved, you are not part of any 'new covenant' that is for Israel, not the Church.
Jesus said He bought a new covenant. Paul verified it. I'll stick with those, thank you.
As for your responses to my allegation of unsureness, fear, tones of contempt, lack of decorum, nastiness and demeaning rhetoric and name calling.
Blah, blah, blah. 