Almighty God's Two Jewish Witnesses Are At Hand!

Danny,
People confuse the church and Israel. When they are confused by them they usually throw Israel under the bus and spiritualize all of Israel’s promises given to them by God for the “Church”.. That is where we have most of our problems..

The Church was God’s mystery which He created on Pentecost (Acts 1-2) after the Nation of Israel rejected the King and the Kingdom offer.. (John 19:15) (The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!). The first “Church (called out assembly) was founded on the Day of Pentecost fifty days after the resurrection of the Messiah. The first church was made up of Jewish believers who received the Messiah.. Later on the gentiles where added buy Paul and Peter etc.. (1 Cor. 12)

After the Church is raptured… God will then begin to deal with Israel again in a time called Jacob’s trouble (the tribulation period or the Day of the Lord. (Romans 9-11)

Israel will then be God’s vessel as the Church was to give out God’s plan of Salvation. After Christ return to earth- in great glory - with His body the church Rev 19:11-21. He will rule and reign with them from Jerusalem. Israel will at this time also be the chief nation of the whole earth as God had promised them. All of Israel’s earthly promises will be thus fulfilled at this time. The Church – Christ’s body (Jew and gentile) and the nation Israel God’s earthly people will both reign in the 1000 year kingdom.

I.F.
Here is some more info...

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/israelch.htm

The idea of the rapture is the new idea in the 1800s of a Scottish minister with no history or scripture behind it

The idea of a pre-trib rapture is the new idea in the 1800s of a Scottish minister with no history or scripture behind it. Scofield, of the Scofield Reference Edition bible, said that the reason no one knew of it in previous times is that it had been "sealed."

The Ignorant Fisherman wrote”

“Danny,
People confuse the church and Israel. When they are confused by them they usually throw Israel under the bus and spiritualize all of Israel’s promises given to them by God for the “Church”.. That is where we have most of our problems..”

Danny?

Whatever.

Look, this really is not that complicated. God promised the first man and woman a Savior from death, which they brought on themselves because of their sin. (Geneses 3:15) The Savior is referred to as the Seed of the woman. Other names, titles, and description will be added throughout the later Old Testament, but all refer to the same One. Do you disagree with this simple observation? If so, we might as well stop the discussion right now, because we would be operating with two entirely different hermeneutics.

I will assume for now, unless you object, that you agree.

Now, the next simple observation has to be verbalized. The Seed was understood by Eve (and surely also Adam) to be not merely her descendent, that is, fully human, but also divine. Thus her exclamation at the birth of her firstborn: “I have acquired a man, the LORD.” (Genesis 4:1) Yes, I know this runs contrary to the KJV and most other English (and other language) translations. However, if you look at the Hebrew text, it is, grammatically, the easiest and most natural translation while at the same time, theologically, being the most startling and, to many, upsetting translation, as the history of its translation shows. Gee, God surprising and upsetting man! As if this isn’t in fact the pattern of divine revelation.

I will assume you will take some time to digest this observation if it is new to you (although it is not new at all). If you disagree, we would have to stop and clarify ... or simply part knowing that we are hopelessly disagreed.

The last simple observation, for now, is this. If the promised Savior, was to be both God and man in one person, then He would have to be of a certain geographical area, of a certain linguistic affinity, of a certain ethnicity, of a certain nationality, of a certain time and space, of a certain mother, and of a certain sex (obviously, to be human narrows the possibilities to two: male or female). This we could call the scandal of particularity.

And it truly is scandalizing as well as being paradoxical. How could the Savior of the world be a particular man from a particular mother from a particular town in a particular time with particular nationality, ethnicity, and linguistic affinity? This has troubled humanity from early on.

If you look at the first great and detailed reiteration of the promise, Genesis 12:1-3, you see the particulars being addressed in the first parts, we could say contingent parts, of the promises, so that the final part could be actualized, i.e., that the One who was to come from Abram would be a blessing to “all the families of the earth.”

The significance of the terms Hebrews (ethnic/linguistic identity), Israelites (tribal/national identity), and Jews (religious identity), all of which are used correctly at all times in the Old and New Testament, these distinctions of meaning being carefully observed, has to do with the promise to Abram. It does because, as Jesus said, “You study the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they that testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39)

There is only one promise (with many contingent parts, each requiring fulfillment to actualize the ultimate and greatest part). There is only one Savior. And there is only one people of God, whether of the Old or New Testament, and that is those who know this promise, this Savior, and trust in Him alone for forgiveness, life, and salvation. To divide God’s people into two, however you try to do so, whether “church and Israel,” “Jew and Greek/Gentile,” or “old covenant nation and new covenant people” is to put asunder what God in Christ has put together.

I cannot accept the premises of your stated theological position because they are at variance with the Holy Scriptures as a whole. Now, beware, I am not saying that you are wrong in all points. Nor am I saying that you are a heretic headed for perdition. Nor am I saying that you are not a Christian. But I am saying that the framework you set forth for interpreting the “millenium” and the “rapture” is standing on a biblically flawed foundation.

Please excuse any unintended typographical errors. I am a terrible editor of my own writing.

Belteshazzar was the name given to Daniel.... thus...Danny..

It was to be a tention breaker... lol..anywho..... The bottom line is that they both are God's people with different callings

That was what I am trying to say. example... infantry, air force.. military, tomato, onion....salad..

a foolish example ..yes... but just trying to communicate. Well my friend..that's the way it is then...

We will have to disagree on that..

what denomination or position are you..(if you do not mind?) thanks for your interaction...

“We will have to disagree on that..”

We will have to disagree on what?

We will have to disagree on what?

Whether or not tomato and onion = salad, apparently.

Ah, thank you.

Well I guess we agree on one people of God but disagree on the different callings, dispensations (stewardships) and blessings even though they have the same blessings in a sence.