>>>All one has to do is read the prophets of God when they spoke of Him returning the Jews (nation of Israel) to the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - a promise He has NEVER rescinded.<<<
Those are all old testament prophecies which even the Jews did not understand (and still don't.) What makes you think the founders of Dispensationalism understood them any better than the Jews?
All those promises were fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham.
<"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)
All those prophesies were fulfilled in the heavenly Sion and New Jerusalem: the Church:
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)
"Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb 11:12-16 KJV)
That is pretty clear to me!
LOL! I just thought of one of the visions of John in the Revelation:
"…Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God … " (Rev 21:9-10 KJV)
Compare that mountain with this one from the old testament:
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. " (Isa 2:2-4 KJV)
Is that the land-based Jerusalem and mount Zion, or is that the heavenly Sion and New Jerusalem? I would also consider this passage before making a decision:
"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (Rev 21:24 KJV)
Do all nations physically travel to mount Zion (like a pilgrimage to Mecca,) or are John and Isaiah referring to the world-wide spiritual Church, available everywhere two or more are gathered together in His name?
Philip
No, the "times" didn't change, just the proper thread for discussing the subject instead of hijacking one already deep in disputing a false gospel. You were asked nicely by several to create a thread for discussing your claims. Glad to see you have, though, posting one as "ecumenical" in order to escape strong disagreement was not what I would call encouraging. Glad to see also that the Moderator removed the label.
Let me ask you this one question, as it will determine whether or not I choose to participate in this thread. Do you see the differences between the preterist and dispensationalist views as insurmountable to Christian fellowship? In other words, I can accept those who believe as you do as Christian brothers and sisters while disagreeing with their beliefs on this subject. I don't see these differences as "heresy" and can respectfully discuss why I disagree without inserting acrimony and disparagement in the conversation. If you cannot, then, I don't see the point. So, which is it?