CHRIST THE CHOSEN ONE, THE ELECT OF THE FATHER

[Everlasting-Grace]

If the promise is to all of Abraham's seed, in the sense that it includes both natural and spiritual seed... that is the natural as well as wild branches, which remain connected to the root, then what?

the promise of salvation is to all of abrahams seed. Natural or spiritual including all his son and their familes.

The promise of land was to one child. and one grandchild and his grandsons 12 kids and all of their familes forever.

 

[Mem]

the promise of salvation is to all of abrahams seed. Natural or spiritual including all his son and their familes.

The promise of land was to one child. and one grandchild and his grandsons 12 kids and all of their familes forever.

Thank you for answering my question. I will continue to consider it, being hesitant that I might risk accepting the first answer to come along only for the comfort of convenience.

 

[Runningman]

If the promise is to all of Abraham's seed, in the sense that it includes both natural and spiritual seed... that is the natural as well as wild branches, which remain connected to the root, then what?

Came here to say basically the same thing that you said.

 

[Jocund]

If the promise is to all of Abraham's seed, in the sense that it includes both natural and spiritual seed... that is the natural as well as wild branches, which remain connected to the root, then what?

Double-entendre is not possible because Gal 3:16 specifically says that the promise to the seed was not to many people but instead to one, which is Christ.

"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

You can have those in Christ whom also happen to be flesh progeny of Abraham. The aspect of being flesh progeny is unimportant. Being in Christ is the important part. And if one is in Christ, one is counted as a seed of Abraham.

If we look at Psalm, we see more explanations about the seed.

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah. [...] For the Lord is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king. Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.[...] I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven." Psalm 89: 3-4,18-19,25-29 KJV

If you look at "firstborn" in this, it ties in with Christ being described as the "firstborn of every creature" in Col 1:15

"[Son: ...] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" - Col 1:15 KJV

And of course, the concept that Christ is the king of kings aligns with Psalm 89's "I will make him... higher than the kings of the earth" and "For the Lord is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king".

And further into Psalm:

"For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness:" - Psalm 105:42-43 KJV

Some Dispensationalists claim that the Lev 26 "remembrance of promise" hadn't happened yet, and in Psalm 105, we see that it has, at least once.

A large part of the dispute between Dispensationalists and Christians is how the mechanics of OT saints worked. Christ wasn't revealed to the world until later, and we see passages that indicate chosen people existing prior to Christ. So what is going on there? We have different passages that address the fact that these dead saints look forward to the land promise fulfilled in new Jerusalem (cf. Heb 11:16), and even recognition that dead saints such as Abraham looked for to and saw Jesus' day (cf. John 8:56).

Dispensationalists will have you believe that Christ does not fulfil laws, promises, prophesies, etc. in the OT, and they purport that the same "chosen" status of pre-Christ Jews would extend beyond the crucifixion. They would have you believe that Christ does not fulfil the OT prophesies that line up with the Messiah:

"And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there." - Isaiah 65:9 KJV.

The seed (singular) out of Jacob, and out of Judah, inherits God's mountains, and God's elect inherits it. The prophesies point toward a Messiah (the singular seed) that leads God's people into righteousness. We see in Isaiah 65:9 that only Christ fits this role, and that role is of the singular seed. The statement in Gal 3:16 reflects this. Both point to the fact that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is an inheritor of land (and more). Those that belong to the seed (the elect, in Christ) are inheritors as well.

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." - Rom 4:13 KJV

In Rom 4:13 we see the full scope of the Abrahamic promises that the seed should be the heir of the world.

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." - Rev 11:15 KJV

And the fulfilment of inheriting the world appears in Rev 11:15.

"The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore. For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it." - Psalm 132:11-14 KJV

Psalm 132:11-14 speaks of a covenant and testimony that will be taught, future tense. And shows that God will inhabit the land. This is supported by OT and NT passages that state a new covenant with Israel, not according to the first covenant (e.g. Heb 10:10-16).

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [...] This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." - Heb 10:10&16 KJV

The Lord intended for the old covenant to be replaced by the new covenant in Christ.

"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." - Heb 8::8-9 KJV

So the answer is "no", the old covenant was not intended to go on forever post-crucifixion. And the seed-promises were never directly to fleshly progeny to begin with. Only through righteousness in Christ are these covenant conditions and promises attained, irrespective of fleshly origin. Gal 3:16 nicely wraps up this concept, but other passages point toward the same concept.

 

[Mem]

Double-entendre is not possible because Gal 3:16 specifically says that the promise to the seed was not to many people but instead to one, which is Christ.

"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

You can have those in Christ whom also happen to be flesh progeny of Abraham. The aspect of being flesh progeny is unimportant. Being in Christ is the important part. And if one is in Christ, one is counted as a seed of Abraham.

If we look at Psalm, we see more explanations about the seed.

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah. [...] For the Lord is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king. Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.[...] I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven." Psalm 89: 3-4,18-19,25-29 KJV

If you look at "firstborn" in this, it ties in with Christ being described as the "firstborn of every creature" in Col 1:15

"[Son: ...] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" - Col 1:15 KJV

And of course, the concept that Christ is the king of kings aligns with Psalm 89's "I will make him... higher than the kings of the earth" and "For the Lord is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king".

And further into Psalm:

"For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness:" - Psalm 105:42-43 KJV

Some Dispensationalists claim that the Lev 26 "remembrance of promise" hadn't happened yet, and in Psalm 105, we see that it has, at least once.

A large part of the dispute between Dispensationalists and Christians is how the mechanics of OT saints worked. Christ wasn't revealed to the world until later, and we see passages that indicate chosen people existing prior to Christ. So what is going on there? We have different passages that address the fact that these dead saints look forward to the land promise fulfilled in new Jerusalem (cf. Heb 11:16), and even recognition that dead saints such as Abraham looked for to and saw Jesus' day (cf. John 8:56).

Dispensationalists will have you believe that Christ does not fulfil laws, promises, prophesies, etc. in the OT, and they purport that the same "chosen" status of pre-Christ Jews would extend beyond the crucifixion. They would have you believe that Christ does not fulfil the OT prophesies that line up with the Messiah:

"And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there." - Isaiah 65:9 KJV.

The seed (singular) out of Jacob, and out of Judah, inherits God's mountains, and God's elect inherits it. The prophesies point toward a Messiah (the singular seed) that leads God's people into righteousness. We see in Isaiah 65:9 that only Christ fits this role, and that role is of the singular seed. The statement in Gal 3:16 reflects this. Both point to the fact that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is an inheritor of land (and more). Those that belong to the seed (the elect, in Christ) are inheritors as well.

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." - Rom 4:13 KJV

In Rom 4:13 we see the full scope of the Abrahamic promises that the seed should be the heir of the world.

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." - Rev 11:15 KJV

And the fulfilment of inheriting the world appears in Rev 11:15.

"The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore. For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it." - Psalm 132:11-14 KJV

Psalm 132:11-14 speaks of a covenant and testimony that will be taught, future tense. And shows that God will inhabit the land. This is supported by OT and NT passages that state a new covenant with Israel, not according to the first covenant (e.g. Heb 10:10-16).

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. [...] This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." - Heb 10:10&16 KJV

The Lord intended for the old covenant to be replaced by the new covenant in Christ.

"For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." - Heb 8::8-9 KJV

So the answer is "no", the old covenant was not intended to go on forever post-crucifixion. And the seed-promises were never directly to fleshly progeny to begin with. Only through righteousness in Christ are these covenant conditions and promises attained, irrespective of fleshly origin. Gal 3:16 nicely wraps up this concept, but other passages point toward the same concept.

Would you say that the Mt of Olives cleaves in two and becomes a plain to destroy "old Jerusalem"? And if so, then why do you think it has been, excuse my loss for adequate wording, 'resurrected' in '48?

 

[Jocund]

Would you say that the Mt of Olives cleaves in two and becomes a plain to destroy "old Jerusalem"?

Zech 14? To me it looks like Jerusalem remains intact in Zech 14.

"Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. [...] All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited." - Zech 14:3-4&10-11 KJV

And if so, then why do you think it has been, excuse my loss for adequate wording, 'resurrected' in '48?

The modern "state" of Israel is not the "kingdom" of Israel described in scripture. It's missing its king, Christ, in order to be a kingdom. The conversation about the west Asian country that calls itself Israel is whether it would represent some kind of prelude to a kingdom of Israel.

A name is just a name, even if it is chosen to sound like it is fulfilling a prophesy. We see warnings of false prophets, satanists calling themselves Jews, people pretending to be the returned Messiah, etc. There are clearly a lot of warnings about pretenders' claims in the Bible. Is the modern geopolitical state that calls itself Israel a fulfilment of Biblical prophesy? At the very least, not necessarily. No more than Jerusalem, New York, USA would necessarily have any bearing on Biblical Jerusalem.

Simply put, I don't find it compelling to believe "it" was 'resurrected' in '48, but I'm willing to loosely entertain the possibility and hear anyone make a case for it. Some people just assume that everyone else is convinced of their claim. I haven't seen anyone make a Biblical case for why a country that calls itself something from the Bible would necessarily be that thing from the Bible.

 

[Mem]

Zech 14? To me it looks like Jerusalem remains intact in Zech 14.

"Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. [...] All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited." - Zech 14:3-4&10-11 KJV



The modern "state" of Israel is not the "kingdom" of Israel described in scripture. It's missing its king, Christ, in order to be a kingdom. The conversation about the west Asian country that calls itself Israel is whether it would represent some kind of prelude to a kingdom of Israel.

A name is just a name, even if it is chosen to sound like it is fulfilling a prophesy. We see warnings of false prophets, satanists calling themselves Jews, people pretending to be the returned Messiah, etc. There are clearly a lot of warnings about pretenders' claims in the Bible. Is the modern geopolitical state that calls itself Israel a fulfilment of Biblical prophesy? At the very least, not necessarily. No more than Jerusalem, New York, USA would necessarily have any bearing on Biblical Jerusalem.

Simply put, I don't find it compelling to believe "it" was 'resurrected' in '48, but I'm willing to loosely entertain the possibility and hear anyone make a case for it. Some people just assume that everyone else is convinced of their claim. I haven't seen anyone make a Biblical case for why a country that calls itself something from the Bible would necessarily be that thing from the Bible.

I have a broader scope of consideration to drawn from now as I continue searching out the possibilities concerning the reality of this topic, and contemporary Israel's significance.

It seems that I'm getting two views here, one from a present vantage point and the other from a future. That is, I see your view as that Israel is all it's going to be, but that it won't always be what it should not when Jesus returns. And the other view is an expectation of what it will and should be, just before Jesus' return, although it may currently not be that it should. I might be off but,

I think the tangle of my thoughts to see what thought goes here and which thought goes there are almost worked out.
If I take up the challenge of presenting the compelling case that you have yet to hear, doing so might help convince myself, one way or the other, in the process. Although I'm currently leaning toward Israel being that thing from the Bible, it may only be from a desire to believe it, and so I may find good reason to accept your position as most compelling.
Much thanks.

 

[awelight]

"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. [...] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." - Gal 3:16&29 KJV

The seed of the promises is Christ and those in Christ are Abraham's seed.

Do you reject Gal 3?

Thanks for responding. I have no problem with what you posted. Salvation is Salvation. The OT Saints and NT Saints are all saved in Christ. However, please address post #24 and the question raised there.

There is a difference between the Salvation promises (spiritual) and the Physical promises, given to Israel and the Kingdom which Christ will bring with Him, which is both Spiritual and Physical. However, if you are Amillennial - you will reject that immediately.

 

[awelight]

Lol I don’t think I’ve even spoke. Tom you have I ? I remember trying before months ago and you just argue constantly

The scriptures just say what they say your right about one thing though the scriptures detail both a blessing and a curse that could result for Israel based on what they did cording to the law it’s not at all complex it becomes complex when one refuses to let what it says be what it says

This shapes the rest of the Old Testament it could have gone either way

“Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭11:26-28‬ ‭KJV‬‬

he gave israel a choice

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭30:15-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬


they chose the curse in the covenant when they broke it

“The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭24:5, 20‬ ‭

it’s like some of you guys read what it says and then “Say no those scriptures don’t say that Gods covenant with israel is “conditionless “

There’s nothing to argue about it’s plain straight forward fact the covenant God made with israel as they entered the promised land could be a blessing if they obeyed and would be a curse if they broke the covenant

it’s as if that’s the pet you can’t grasp they broke the covenant God warned them not to break he warned them In detail multiple repeated times

“The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭28:21‬ ‭KJV‬

“And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭24:10‬

“And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face: therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them.”
‭‭Hosea‬ ‭5:5‬ ‭

“The virgin of Israel is fallen; she shall no more rise: she is forsaken upon her land; there is none to raise her up.”
‭‭Amos‬ ‭5:2‬ ‭KJV‬‬

After he’s announced the curse on the earth gays going to destroy it he promised a new covenant because they broke the other and it became a curse just like he repeatedly said to them

“Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭31:31-34‬ ‭KJV‬‬


that’s the only way israel can be saved understanding tv y broke the covenant made through Moses and are cursed by it thier last chance was when Jesus came but they killed him and the result was this

“But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same is become the head of the corner: This is the Lord's doing, And it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭21:37-43‬

I understand you don’t want the scriptures involved and just want to argue but it just says what it says

israel can be saved from the curse just like gentiles can be saved from the curse which sin brought to the world

The land of promise for those who are saved is not the land that was defiles and cursed it’s not in this world

“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:13‬ ‭

Peter was an Israelite and he’s telling you the promised land is the new creation promised in Christ

the whole early church are Israelites , they are the remnant who believes when the messiah came like God told them in the prophets

there’s a reason thy gospel was preached specifically to israel first and then after he was rejected and killed he sent it to all nations

he was given tonisrsel to save them from the curse but they refused him when he came this is how he came to all nations when all the gentiles Of all nations including Israel , are fetbherew that will end this earth and usher in the new things

Your trying to restore flesh and blood according to a covenant that cursed them and has no restoration

and ignoring the new and eternal covenant sent to save man both Israelites nd gentiles because thier flesh doesn’t matter thier faith in Christ matters

gentiles who accept the gospel and Israelites who accept the gospel they are all going to be saved and share in the kingdom with Jesus

gentiles and Israelites who reject the gospel are not going to be saved and will not share in the kingdom with Christ

it’s simple one covenant was broken and the curses God swore in it for transgression came to pass on those who broke the covenant given to them

another covenant was given by Jesus Christ the messiah and savior of Israel
And the earth, the new covenant doesn’t promise the old promised land it promises a new home that will
Never pass away like this one is going to

there are two testaments in scripture each holds its own promises , each is according to its own creation it’s own heaven and earth

one is going to end violently the other will Never end

One covenant leads to death the other to eternal Life but not in this world this one’s ending

Israel’s covenant says what it says pertaining to the land of promise given to aNathan’s flesh offspring it was given then and they defiles and cursed and ruined it

now God has made a new covenant with better promises and a better promised land

I don't know who Tom is but at any rate - Based on your post, I have a particular question that needs to be addressed.

How can Israel, break an Unconditional and Unilateral Covenant that God made with Himself? Did He not Know Israel's fate? This would be like saying: That in the beginning, God asked man how he wanted to be made. Absurd. God determined in His own counsel how things would be made. Likewise, God chose Israel to receive special blessing over the nations because He chose this in His own counsel.

 

[Jocund]

Thanks for responding. I have no problem with what you posted. Salvation is Salvation.

Gal 3:16 is about what the "seed" means in the Abrahamic promises. It is speaking about all of the Abrahamic promises, not a subset. It is specifically states that the promises were to Christ (the Messiah). You either accept that Christ is the seed spoken of in each of those promises, or you reject literal and straightforward meaning of Gal 3:16.

The OT Saints and NT Saints are all saved in Christ.

Yes, and modern nonChristian Jews are not OT saints. (Although like Saul to Paul, many could have an unrealized sainthood in Christ).

However, please address post #24 and the question raised there.

You asked a single rhetorical question in your post, #24.

"But what do we read in His reply?" regarding Acts 1:6-7.

The truth is that much like His parables, Acts 1:7 is not a direct answer to the question. You are reading into how He answered the question to bolster your assumption that He was alluding to the fulfilment of some other promise in the manner that someone was asking, but that would be an assumption, not a necessary interpretation.

You are presenting an eisegesis instead of an exegesis.

There is a difference between the Salvation promises (spiritual) and the Physical promises

Which Abrahamic promises are you proposing necessarily fall under "spiritual promises" vs "physical promises"? This another eisegesis unless you have a scriptural basis for the division of promises.

, given to Israel

Given to elect Israel, which after the crucifixion are called to become Christian.

, and the Kingdom which Christ will bring with Him, which is both Spiritual and Physical. However, if you are Amillennial - you will reject that immediately.

Amill is a possible interpretation, so if that possibility negates the necessity of your interpretation, yes, your interpretation is not necessary.

Sometimes necessity isn't important. Make a compelling case for your claim. But first, make clear exactly what you are claiming and on what scriptural basis.

The promises to Israel and the forefathers, was to inherit the land promised to THEM

And OT spiritual Israel had promises fulfilled to them. Other OT saints of righteousness that looked forward to the coming of Christ and saw His day. True Israel in the OT was composed of OT saints, not just anyone born of Israel, Judah, etc.

, to be ruled over by the Messiah

If you look to Heb 11, the promise of land is paid by equivalency in the heavenly city that God has prepared. Heb 11:15 states that these conscious, dead saints no longer have the opportunity to return to the physical country from where they came. The concept is incompatible with the concept of resurrection into the 1000 year kingdom by elect bloodline Jews.

"And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned." - Heb 11:15 KJV

Heb 11:15 shows that the people spoken of don't have the opportunity to return. If we look at the verses prior, we can see who was being talked about:

"Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.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." - Heb 11:12-13 KJV

This is talking about all of Abraham's descendants. Then up to Heb 11:39-40, it gives examples of people that lived by faith that did not receive the promise. A good example out of that section is Moses:

"Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward." - Heb 11:26 KJV

In Heb 11:39-40, we see the offer of fulfilment through equivalence (or better):

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." - Heb 11:39-40 KJV

"Us" is talking about the intended audience inclusive of the speaker and OT saints. There is no indicator at the beginning of Hebrews whether the audience is gentile converts, or Jewish converts, or generally to the Church as a whole. But the "us" is clearly included in the promise. And the specific promise mentioned leads from the discussion about land.

But the interesting point is that not all of Abraham's descendants inherited the promise "Not all of Israel are Israel", therefore this either is talking about dead conscious people have an expectation potentially in vain, or it is only talking about the elect.

, to be ruled over by the Messiah, to receive peace and safety. THEY have never yet, received these things. But they will, when Christ returns and establishes His physical Kingdom on earth.

To tie this all together, Heb 11 further disagrees with the idea that even ethnic Jews under Christ would receive physical land. Instead, "God has provided something better for us" as they no longer have the opportunity for return from whence they came.

In the land promised to the ethnic Jews.

Abraham wasn't a Jew. Isaac wasn't a Jew. Really, we aren't talking about Jews, we are talking about people of faith. The land promises were to the faithful in the Messiah, people of faith and righteousness. Before the Messiah was revealed there were no parts of the faith that rejected the Messiah. After the Messiah was revealed in Christ Jesus, there are those that rejected the Christ and therefore fell outside of this election unless if God has destined them to come back in (like Saul to Paul).

There are a few things in play here. First, whether 100% of all ethnic Jews would be elected in the faith of righteousness.

Reigning from Jerusalem over all the nations for a thousand years.

Mt Zion, no?

You seem to be under the impression, that the ethnic Jews, who made up the beginning of the Church, were expecting the Church and not the coming Kingdom. This cannot be supported Biblically.

Except for the Church is just the election of people under the Messiah, which based on Heb 11, they were looking forward to. And based on Heb 11, the dead saints of the OT were looking forward to something better than physical land, and gave up the opportunity for the physical land described.

Historically, according to many sources, the ethnic Jew of Christ's ministry on earth, were expecting a Millennial Kingdom.

Secondary historical accounts are fallible. We're talking about what scripture says, which is inerrant.

They read and interpreted the Old Testament Prophecies as literal [... kingdom ... Acts 1:6-7 ... ] Perhaps, they misunderstood. God forbid! But let's explore this possibility.

If indeed they had misunderstood, then this was the perfect opportunity for out Lord to have corrected them.

Acts 1:6-7 bit answered above. The quick recap is that your logic here ignores the fact that Jesus' often spoke in an indirect manner on purpose:

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." - Mat 13:10-13 KJV

So if one wishes to pursue this idea that the Kingdom has been given to the Church - they must be honest with the Scriptures and give proper interpretation and thus, explanation for what was asked and answered in Acts 1:6 & 7. Trying to explain it away, with other Scriptures, is not a good way to study and come to the Truth. Not saying you would do this.

Christ Jesus is the chosen Israel. Christ Jesus is the seed of the promises.

Through marriage two become one. Christ is the bridegroom to the Church.

The Church includes elect Israelites.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Amill is a possible interpretation

How can denying a literal Millennium which is clearly stated in Scripture be a "possible interpretation"? That would be like denying that the sun exists just because there is a cloudy sky.

 

[Jocund]

How can denying a literal Millennium which is clearly stated in Scripture be a "possible interpretation"? That would be like denying that the sun exists just because there is a cloudy sky.

That's a fair question. How is an amil interpretation possible?

For the purposes of this thread, we can probably just ignore amil but if we need to explore it here just for the sake of determining whether a different intepretation is necessary or not, we should be looking at an amil interpretation which provides the best chance of success for itself. We need to recognize that there is good similiarity between the imagery in Daniel's dreams (which he explains the meanings of in the book of Daniel) and imagery in Revelation. We need to recognize that Revelation is a vision and the same conditions as Daniel's visions could apply. We need to acknowledge that there is a good case to be made that Revelation is achronological, since the birth of the man child in Rev 12:5 appears to be describing Christ, and being that, in its description there are figurative parts.

It's beside the point. If we want to ignore Daniel's similarities, it still is not supported by Christian scripture to say that there would be a kingdom ruled by Christ and only ethnic Jews that were nonChristian up until that point. In fact, that contradicts scripture and therefore is not possible.

 

[kaylagrl]

Gal 3:16 is about what the "seed" means in the Abrahamic promises. It is speaking about all of the Abrahamic promises, not a subset. It is specifically states that the promises were to Christ (the Messiah). You either accept that Christ is the seed spoken of in each of those promises, or you reject literal and straightforward meaning of Gal 3:16.



Yes, and modern nonChristian Jews are not OT saints. (Although like Saul to Paul, many could have an unrealized sainthood in Christ).



You asked a single rhetorical question in your post, #24.

"But what do we read in His reply?" regarding Acts 1:6-7.

The truth is that much like His parables, Acts 1:7 is not a direct answer to the question. You are reading into how He answered the question to bolster your assumption that He was alluding to the fulfilment of some other promise in the manner that someone was asking, but that would be an assumption, not a necessary interpretation.

You are presenting an eisegesis instead of an exegesis.



Which Abrahamic promises are you proposing necessarily fall under "spiritual promises" vs "physical promises"? This another eisegesis unless you have a scriptural basis for the division of promises.



Given to elect Israel, which after the crucifixion are called to become Christian.



Amill is a possible interpretation, so if that possibility negates the necessity of your interpretation, yes, your interpretation is not necessary.

Sometimes necessity isn't important. Make a compelling case for your claim. But first, make clear exactly what you are claiming and on what scriptural basis.



And OT spiritual Israel had promises fulfilled to them. Other OT saints of righteousness that looked forward to the coming of Christ and saw His day. True Israel in the OT was composed of OT saints, not just anyone born of Israel, Judah, etc.



If you look to Heb 11, the promise of land is paid by equivalency in the heavenly city that God has prepared. Heb 11:15 states that these conscious, dead saints no longer have the opportunity to return to the physical country from where they came. The concept is incompatible with the concept of resurrection into the 1000 year kingdom by elect bloodline Jews.

"And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned." - Heb 11:15 KJV

Heb 11:15 shows that the people spoken of don't have the opportunity to return. If we look at the verses prior, we can see who was being talked about:

"Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.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." - Heb 11:12-13 KJV

This is talking about all of Abraham's descendants. Then up to Heb 11:39-40, it gives examples of people that lived by faith that did not receive the promise. A good example out of that section is Moses:

"Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward." - Heb 11:26 KJV

In Heb 11:39-40, we see the offer of fulfilment through equivalence (or better):

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." - Heb 11:39-40 KJV

"Us" is talking about the intended audience inclusive of the speaker and OT saints. There is no indicator at the beginning of Hebrews whether the audience is gentile converts, or Jewish converts, or generally to the Church as a whole. But the "us" is clearly included in the promise. And the specific promise mentioned leads from the discussion about land.

But the interesting point is that not all of Abraham's descendants inherited the promise "Not all of Israel are Israel", therefore this either is talking about dead conscious people have an expectation potentially in vain, or it is only talking about the elect.



To tie this all together, Heb 11 further disagrees with the idea that even ethnic Jews under Christ would receive physical land. Instead, "God has provided something better for us" as they no longer have the opportunity for return from whence they came.



Abraham wasn't a Jew. Isaac wasn't a Jew. Really, we aren't talking about Jews, we are talking about people of faith. The land promises were to the faithful in the Messiah, people of faith and righteousness. Before the Messiah was revealed there were no parts of the faith that rejected the Messiah. After the Messiah was revealed in Christ Jesus, there are those that rejected the Christ and therefore fell outside of this election unless if God has destined them to come back in (like Saul to Paul).

There are a few things in play here. First, whether 100% of all ethnic Jews would be elected in the faith of righteousness.



Mt Zion, no?



Except for the Church is just the election of people under the Messiah, which based on Heb 11, they were looking forward to. And based on Heb 11, the dead saints of the OT were looking forward to something better than physical land, and gave up the opportunity for the physical land described.



Secondary historical accounts are fallible. We're talking about what scripture says, which is inerrant.



Acts 1:6-7 bit answered above. The quick recap is that your logic here ignores the fact that Jesus' often spoke in an indirect manner on purpose:

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." - Mat 13:10-13 KJV



Christ Jesus is the chosen Israel. Christ Jesus is the seed of the promises.

Through marriage two become one. Christ is the bridegroom to the Church.

The Church includes elect Israelites.

To believe what you are saying you need to rip portions out of the Bible and toss them. Everlasting and unconditional means exactly that. The Covenant He made with Abraham was unconditional, everlasting. Romans 11 is clear. But you cling to the false doctrine of Replacement Theory while calling others not Christians. There are promises that will be kept to the Jews. It's sad that this anti-Semitism passed through the church unnoticed. Sadder still that you are here passing this same false doctrine to others.

 

[kaylagrl]

I don't know who Tom is but at any rate - Based on your post, I have a particular question that needs to be addressed.

How can Israel, break an Unconditional and Unilateral Covenant that God made with Himself? Did He not Know Israel's fate? This would be like saying: That in the beginning, God asked man how he wanted to be made. Absurd. God determined in His own counsel how things would be made. Likewise, God chose Israel to receive special blessing over the nations because He chose this in His own counsel.

Correct!! Why did God go through that whole song and dance? No one can seem to answer that. As I say, "If God won't keep His promise to the Jews, He won't keep His promise to you. You have no hope of salvation if everlasting doesn't mean what it says.

 

[Mem]

If I take up the challenge of presenting the compelling case that you have yet to hear, doing so might help convince myself, one way or the other, in the process.

Ok, I've found the strongest argument to hold to my initial position. However, it's only by it having come to mind rather than happening upon it so please suffer with my failure to retrieve the specific verses and contexts.
Paul does address Jew and Gentile individually and wishes that he were anathema for their sake, and perhaps another author, that of Hebrews which author is decidedly anonymous, addresses Jew and gentile separately. Even in saying that there is no longer Jew nor gentile suggests that the gentiles benefit via the promise to the Jews, and Jesus himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews." So then, how can we dismiss them in no longer being a part of the scope of the possible outcomes in the plans of God to bring New Jerusalem to earth?

 

[kaylagrl]

Ok, I've found the strongest argument to hold to my initial position. However, it's only by it having come to mind rather than happening upon it so please suffer with my failure to retrieve the specific verses and contexts.
Paul does address Jew and Gentile individually and wishes that he were anathema for their sake, and perhaps another author, that of Hebrews which author is decidedly anonymous, addresses Jew and gentile separately. Even in saying that there is no longer Jew nor gentile suggests that the gentiles benefit via the promise to the Jews, and Jesus himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews." So then, how can we dismiss them in no longer being a part of the scope of the possible outcomes in the plans of God to bring New Jerusalem to earth?

Thank you, this is the part of Scripture I bring up each time Replacement Theory raises it's ugly head. Why does it say Jews are blinded for a time? Why does it say God will take away their sin if there is nothing left but the church to have all the promises? I don't think everyone who believes RT is anti- Semitic, but that belief system was Catholic. It was left over from Martin Luther, who had a terrible disdain for the Jews and followed up the church fathers all the way to the Holocaust. Both Catholics and Protestants repented publicly of RT and yet it has been renamed and repackaged. God made an everlasting and unconditional covenant with the Jews, salvation was to the Jew first, then the Gentiles. God will keep those promises or we have no hope He will keep His promise to us, the grafted in ones.

 

[awelight]

Gal 3:16 is about what the "seed" means in the Abrahamic promises. It is speaking about all of the Abrahamic promises, not a subset. It is specifically states that the promises were to Christ (the Messiah). You either accept that Christ is the seed spoken of in each of those promises, or you reject literal and straightforward meaning of Gal 3:16.



Yes, and modern nonChristian Jews are not OT saints. (Although like Saul to Paul, many could have an unrealized sainthood in Christ).



You asked a single rhetorical question in your post, #24.

"But what do we read in His reply?" regarding Acts 1:6-7.

The truth is that much like His parables, Acts 1:7 is not a direct answer to the question. You are reading into how He answered the question to bolster your assumption that He was alluding to the fulfilment of some other promise in the manner that someone was asking, but that would be an assumption, not a necessary interpretation.

You are presenting an eisegesis instead of an exegesis.



Which Abrahamic promises are you proposing necessarily fall under "spiritual promises" vs "physical promises"? This another eisegesis unless you have a scriptural basis for the division of promises.



Given to elect Israel, which after the crucifixion are called to become Christian.



Amill is a possible interpretation, so if that possibility negates the necessity of your interpretation, yes, your interpretation is not necessary.

Sometimes necessity isn't important. Make a compelling case for your claim. But first, make clear exactly what you are claiming and on what scriptural basis.



And OT spiritual Israel had promises fulfilled to them. Other OT saints of righteousness that looked forward to the coming of Christ and saw His day. True Israel in the OT was composed of OT saints, not just anyone born of Israel, Judah, etc.



If you look to Heb 11, the promise of land is paid by equivalency in the heavenly city that God has prepared. Heb 11:15 states that these conscious, dead saints no longer have the opportunity to return to the physical country from where they came. The concept is incompatible with the concept of resurrection into the 1000 year kingdom by elect bloodline Jews.

"And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned." - Heb 11:15 KJV

Heb 11:15 shows that the people spoken of don't have the opportunity to return. If we look at the verses prior, we can see who was being talked about:

"Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.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." - Heb 11:12-13 KJV

This is talking about all of Abraham's descendants. Then up to Heb 11:39-40, it gives examples of people that lived by faith that did not receive the promise. A good example out of that section is Moses:

"Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward." - Heb 11:26 KJV

In Heb 11:39-40, we see the offer of fulfilment through equivalence (or better):

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." - Heb 11:39-40 KJV

"Us" is talking about the intended audience inclusive of the speaker and OT saints. There is no indicator at the beginning of Hebrews whether the audience is gentile converts, or Jewish converts, or generally to the Church as a whole. But the "us" is clearly included in the promise. And the specific promise mentioned leads from the discussion about land.

But the interesting point is that not all of Abraham's descendants inherited the promise "Not all of Israel are Israel", therefore this either is talking about dead conscious people have an expectation potentially in vain, or it is only talking about the elect.



To tie this all together, Heb 11 further disagrees with the idea that even ethnic Jews under Christ would receive physical land. Instead, "God has provided something better for us" as they no longer have the opportunity for return from whence they came.



Abraham wasn't a Jew. Isaac wasn't a Jew. Really, we aren't talking about Jews, we are talking about people of faith. The land promises were to the faithful in the Messiah, people of faith and righteousness. Before the Messiah was revealed there were no parts of the faith that rejected the Messiah. After the Messiah was revealed in Christ Jesus, there are those that rejected the Christ and therefore fell outside of this election unless if God has destined them to come back in (like Saul to Paul).

There are a few things in play here. First, whether 100% of all ethnic Jews would be elected in the faith of righteousness.



Mt Zion, no?



Except for the Church is just the election of people under the Messiah, which based on Heb 11, they were looking forward to. And based on Heb 11, the dead saints of the OT were looking forward to something better than physical land, and gave up the opportunity for the physical land described.



Secondary historical accounts are fallible. We're talking about what scripture says, which is inerrant.



Acts 1:6-7 bit answered above. The quick recap is that your logic here ignores the fact that Jesus' often spoke in an indirect manner on purpose:

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand." - Mat 13:10-13 KJV



Christ Jesus is the chosen Israel. Christ Jesus is the seed of the promises.

Through marriage two become one. Christ is the bridegroom to the Church.

The Church includes elect Israelites.

There are only two things, in your post, I wish to address.

First - your claim that Acts 1:6-7, is some sort of parable or is being used in that way. It is obvious, to any reader, that these two verses have nothing to do with parables. Why? 1.) Because the language, both in the question and the answer are straight forward. 2.) There is no symbolism employed in the conversation. 3.) Jesus Christ did not - at any time - use parables when answering His own. Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables:

The purpose of parables, is clearly defined in the Scriptures:

Mat_13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them:
Mat 13:35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.

Thus, your claim that Acts 1:6-7, is somehow a parable, is disingenuous on your part. I believe you know full well this is not a parable. So why muddy the waters with this nonsense.

Second - You made the following statements about Acts 1:7:

"The truth is that much like His parables, Acts 1:7 is not a direct answer to the question. You are reading into how He answered the question to bolster your assumption that He was alluding to the fulfilment of some other promise in the manner that someone was asking, but that would be an assumption, not a necessary interpretation.

You are presenting an eisegesis instead of an exegesis."

You should become a politician. You said much without really saying anything. You believe I read to much into it. However, you made no attempt to explain what the proper understanding would be and thus, did not answer my question nor did you enlighten us in anyway. If the disciples were wrong about the Kingdom to Israel, then why did the Lord not correct them? He was about to ascend and leave them. What? He just left them in their ignorance? No one, surly, would believe that.

 

[awelight]

Correct!! Why did God go through that whole song and dance? No one can seem to answer that. As I say, "If God won't keep His promise to the Jews, He won't keep His promise to you. You have no hope of salvation if everlasting doesn't mean what it says.

Yes indeed, having a doctrine, wherein, God breaks his own Unilateral and Unconditional Covenant, is a dangerous place to be. Thanks be to God, He has enabled us to see the light on this and He will enable the nations and Israel to see this truth, in the coming future; both in His own and to the lost.

The heart of the question is this - Why would one want a god who breaks his promises? It damages ones assurance and faith. How hard is it to place your trust in one who would permanently cast off his chosen people?

It is amazing, the lengths that people will go through, just to defend their position, rather than give it up for something better. I believe, this error, is driven by a hatred for the ethnic Jews. In early church history, the hatred for the Jews was so palatable. The Jews had rejected Christ, so the church wanted to dispose of them or at least make them suffer. This is the primary reason, why men like: Augustine, Calvin, Luther and other great defenders of Sovereign Election, were Amillennial. This and the fact that Eschatology was not really their battle.

I look forward to the day, when the ethnic Jews (Israel), will be refreshed/restored in their Kingdom. I will rejoice with them because it is our Lord's Plan and Purpose. As a gentile, I am just happy to be included.

 

[Jocund]

Jesus himself said, "Salvation is of the Jews." So then, how can we dismiss them in no longer being a part of the scope of the possible outcomes in the plans of God to bring New Jerusalem to earth?

Jesus is a Jew by birthright and salvation is through Him.

Christ Jesus is "of the Jews". His statement is true.

None of this states that all Jews will find salvation. None of this states that all Jews will obtain the desired output of the promises. Jesus even calls a Pharisee a child of hell and aludes to a rich man being in Hades.

how can we dismiss them in no longer being a part

It's not as though God's promises were in vain. Look at Paul, he joined the Church (the elect) and is representative of the nation of his forefathers. The Christian perspective is that ethnics Jews have a part in the promises through the Church in Jesus Christ, as a fulfilment of the faith unto righteousness. Elect Jews were not replaced, their faith is fulfilled in Christ. And some of these with fulfilled faith have been Christian for generations, for as far back as two millennia.

Hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists will have you believe that no generational Christians with Jewish ancestry exist. That purportedly no one but Talmudic Jews have the right to their interpretations of land promises. These hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists will have you believe that Jesus doesn't even count as a Jew for the purposes of the promises. Hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists will have you believe that hypothetical descendants of Timothy or other early Christians from Jewish bloodlines somehow don't count as people of Jewish ancestry for the purpose of their interpretation of the promises. The hateful antisemitic Dispensationalist belief appears to be that in order to qualify as an inheritor of the promises that one must reject Christ or come from a family-line that generationally rejected Christ. Anyone that rejects that the Messiah is the seed of the Abrahamic promises rejects Christian scripture.

These hateful antisemitic Dispensationalists seem to forget that there is more than one semitic group other than the collected Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews represented in Talmudic Judaism. Hateful ignorance is very often at the heart of Dispensationalism.

All Christians should stand strong against the lies of the religion of Dispensationalism.

Every Christian should be aware that Dispensationalists reject Christ the Seed. This should alarm any Christian in the same way that the rejection of the Trinity by Latter Day Saints is alarming, or that Moslems believe that Jesus is the Christ but not as the Son of God.

I think some people can be raised in an environment of lies and despite that eventually be drawn to the truth. I don't think every Dispensationalist is necessarily doomed to their false beliefs, but the vocal ones certainly speak on behalf of deceptions and lies and those false ideas should be called out for what they are.

bring New Jerusalem to earth?

New Jerusalem comes down to new earth in Rev 21. I haven't seen evidence that New Jerusalem comes down to earth (old earth). Do you have passages that would support this?

 

[Nehemiah6]

It's beside the point. If we want to ignore Daniel's similarities, it still is not supported by Christian scripture to say that there would be a kingdom ruled by Christ and only ethnic Jews that were nonChristian up until that point. In fact, that contradicts scripture and therefore is not possible.

It seems that you are not very clear about the Millennial Kingdom or redeemed and restored Israel on earth after the Second Coming of Christ. But since this is off topic we can leave it for now.