ECT Is there a TRANSDITION BETWEEN ISRAEL and THE GENTILES ??

D

DAN P

Well-known member
Hi to all and someone said that 70 AD is the divide between the two , BUT they say that Luke 19:44 proves his point and then claims that it is a Mid-Acts point , BUT not so as he has a BANANA PEEL under those statements !

#1 , There are many proofs that Israel was already prophsied many times in Isa 61:2 !!

#2, Notice when Jesus reads 4:19 Jesus stopps reading in the MIDDLE of the verse and the 70 AD people can not explain why , can you ??

Let's see what Luke 19:44 really means , since they BLEND the " Acceptable Year of the Lord and what the day of Vengeance of our God !!

Verse 44 reads , And SHALL LAY thee even with the Ground , and thy children with in thee and they SHALL not one stone upon another , because thou kneweth the time of thy VISITATION !!

#3 They can not explain what VISITATION means , can you ?

#4 , Then explain why the verb tense " EVEN WITH THE GROUND " in the FUTURE TENSE along with the verb " LEAVE " also in the FUTURE TENSE ??

The 70 AD people have a straw dummy and have nothing CONSIDERED PROOF

The FUTURE TENSE points to the Great Tribulation , that's why !!!!

dan p
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
DAN P said:
Hi to all and someone said that 70 AD is the divide between the two , BUT they say that Luke 19:44 proves his point and then claims that it is a Mid-Acts point , BUT not so as he has a BANANA PEEL under those statements !

#1 , There are many proofs that Israel was already prophsied many times in Isa 61:2 !!

#2, Notice when Jesus reads 4:19 Jesus stopps reading in the MIDDLE of the verse and the 70 AD people can not explain why , can you ??

Let's see what Luke 19:44 really means , since they BLEND the " Acceptable Year of the Lord and what the day of Vengeance of our God !!

Verse 44 reads , And SHALL LAY thee even with the Ground , and thy children with in thee and they SHALL not one stone upon another , because thou kneweth the time of thy VISITATION !!

#3 They can not explain what VISITATION means , can you ?

#4 , Then explain why the verb tense " EVEN WITH THE GROUND " in the FUTURE TENSE along with the verb " LEAVE " also in the FUTURE TENSE ??

The 70 AD people have a straw dummy and have nothing CONSIDERED PROOF

The FUTURE TENSE points to the Great Tribulation , that's why !!!!

dan p
Click to expand...



re #3.
Dan, the mistake is thinking that the 'not recognizing the visitation' was the grisly crucifixion. But we find out from Peter, and Paul, that that had to take place. The warning about 'not recognizing' intentionally takes on a time-lapse effect. Like Acts or Hebrews, we find out there is a rejection of God's mission by that generation of Israel which is actually worse.

That generation, as we know from so many declarations of Jesus, was auspicious for Israel--it was supposed to move in the direction of the apostles who preached and taught immediately afterward to it. They said yes, the crucifixion was a huge mistake but there is forgiveness for it, because there is forgiveness through it for all things. That was now the worldwide message God wanted to have taken around, again, by that generation.

Instead, if you know 1st century history Judea, most of Israel followed political liberator messiahs and did so for the Law, in zeal for the Law. They fought in a pointless battle, a time of unequalled trouble, Mt 24A.
 
D

Danoh

New member
No, IP, Israel's error was their wicked hands.

"He came unto his own and his own received him not..."

That God knew they would reject and crucify Him "with wicked hands" did not excuse their guilt in that crime though He knowingly used it to achieve the pardon and redemption He then offered them through it.

As for the rest of that, well; I leave you to your need to EVER OVER read secular "history" INTO such things.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Acts 13's after-sermon discussion and Acts 15's quote of Amos are not "secular" history or materials. They show exactly that same theme--that Israel was supposed to be a mission through Christ.

btw, we are in agreement about their wicked hands. You can't read well or retain or something. I'm saying that the verdict against came, not from crucifying Christ (hear the crass Nazi ridicule?) but from not joining the mission LIKE THE APOSTLES after realizing that the crucifixion was God in Christ redeeming the world from its sin by atonement. There are then two directions in the mid first century: be part of the mission and avoid trouble with Rome OR
be part of liberating Judea with a self-claimed messiah and get squashed.

Perhaps you have a problem with the word 'secular' but if this fork in the road is secular, then so be it; it was the reality of the overall situation of those 4 decades. All this is very well introduced by Pastor Peter Holford in his defense of the divinity of Christ from these events, c. 1805.
 
D

Danoh

New member
No problem with the word secular. Geez are you dense - my problem is with your responding from your OVER reliance on such things - get - this - through - your - book - drenched - head - already - my problem is not with books - but with YOUR O-V-E-R R-E-L-I-A-N-C-E O-N T-H-E-M :doh:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Danoh said:
No problem with the word secular. Geez are you dense - my problem is with your responding from your OVER reliance on such things - get - this - through - your - book - drenched - head - already - my problem is not with books - but with YOUR O-V-E-R R-E-L-I-A-N-C-E O-N T-H-E-M :doh:
Click to expand...


At that rate, Holford is "dense." You are fool to think so.
 
D

DAN P

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
re #3.
Dan, the mistake is thinking that the 'not recognizing the visitation' was the grisly crucifixion. But we find out from Peter, and Paul, that that had to take place. The warning about 'not recognizing' intentionally takes on a time-lapse effect. Like Acts or Hebrews, we find out there is a rejection of God's mission by that generation of Israel which is actually worse.

That generation, as we know from so many declarations of Jesus, was auspicious for Israel--it was supposed to move in the direction of the apostles who preached and taught immediately afterward to it. They said yes, the crucifixion was a huge mistake but there is forgiveness for it, because there is forgiveness through it for all things. That was now the worldwide message God wanted to have taken around, again, by that generation.

Instead, if you know 1st century history Judea, most of Israel followed political liberator messiahs and did so for the Law, in zeal for the Law. They fought in a pointless battle, a time of unequalled trouble, Mt 24A.
Click to expand...



Hi and you did not look up what the Greek word VISTATION / EPISKOPE really means ane it is a transliterated word meaning the following :

#1, It means DEEDS

#2 , It means an OVERSEER

#3 , One who PERSIDING

#4 , Means an OFFICER

Where did you get CROSS at Luke 19:44 ?? G1984 , check it OUT !!

In Luke 13:8 did VISTED Israel for 3 years and found NO FRUIT just like the the Pemtecostals and the Acts 2 people have not FRUIT and you have had 2000 years to produce FRUIT for God !!

dan p
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Is there a transition between Israel and the Gentiles ??
Click to expand...
Yes, there is, but there are two ways to calculate it.

Transition between Israel and the Gentiles as heirs to the promise

The transition between Israel as sole heirs to the promise and the Gentiles as joint heirs to the promise is the first transition to consider.

The prophecy of the 70 weeks shows that Daniel's people and holy city from the time a commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was given.

That the decree of Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE.

Jesus died on the cross in 30 CE (common assumption), and the 490 years ended three and a half years later in 33 CE.

The first recorded event in the Bible after the end of the 490 years is Peter being sent to Cornelius and Cornelius receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:41).

Some people would count Cornelius receiving the Holy Ghost as the beginning of the time of the Gentiles.

The time lasts until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, Romans 11:25, then Israel gets something extra as fulfillment of other promises God made their ancestors.



Transition of the Land of Israel from Israel to the Gentiles

The transition of the Land of Israel from being controlled by the children of Israel to being controlled by the Gentiles should also be considered.

This happened in fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse prophecy.

According to Luke 21:24, Jerusalem will be trodden down by Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

The fulfillment of that verse started in 70 CE and the great tribulation encompasses the entire time of the Gentiles.

According to the seventy weeks prophecy, this desolation at the Gentiles will last "even until the consummation."
 
D

Danoh

New member
"The times of the Gentiles" refers to the political power of Gentile Kings over Israel already in place over that nation way before Daniel, Dan. 2:24.

While "the fulness of the Gentiles" refers to the filling up of God's temporary "visit" among the Gentiles spiritually, during Israel's temporary fall; Acts 15:14-18; Rom. 9:22-24; Rom. 9:30-33; Rom. 11: 11; Rom. 11:25-29.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Danoh said:
"The times of the Gentiles" refers to the political power of Gentile Kings over Israel already in place over that nation way before Daniel, Dan. 2:24.

While "the fulness of the Gentiles" refers to the filling up of God's temporary "visit" among the Gentiles spiritually, during Israel's temporary fall; Acts 15:14-18; Rom. 9:22-24; Rom. 9:30-33; Rom. 11: 11; Rom. 11:25-29.
Click to expand...

That is a shorter way of saying what I said.
:)
 
D

DAN P

Well-known member
genuineoriginal said:
Yes, there is, but there are two ways to calculate it.

The first recorded event in the Bible after the end of the 490 years is Peter being sent to Cornelius and Cornelius receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:41).

Some people would count Cornelius receiving the Holy Ghost as the beginning of the time of the Gentiles.
/QUOTE]


Hi , and there is not ONE verse to prove that Cornelius was part of the Body of Christ , period !

Cornelius HAD to be inducted into Israel !

At Cornelius time the Body of Christ was not KNOWN !!

Why do all FAIL to see that for Cornelius WATER BAPTISM was required and the speaking in Lamguages as recounted in Acts 10:45 !!

The BEGINNING and separation between Israel and GENTILES began in Acts 9:6 com[pleted in Acts Acts 28:28 !!

dan p
Click to expand...
 
D

Danoh

New member
Peter's understanding had been Matt. 10:23 FIRST; and rightly so; Isaiah 2:1-5; Dan. 2:44; Acts 3:18-26.
 
D

Danoh

New member
genuineoriginal said:
I think you are doing a splendid job of proving you are a moron without my help.
Click to expand...

Obnoxious; yes. A bit over zealous; yes. Ever asserting his version of Mid-Acts is the only sound one; yes. A bit lazy on the spell check; yes. A bit ever baiting others with questions he then yells "wrong" about (or, rather; misspells it), yes.

A moron; no.

Actually, he relates some very sharp observations, more often then not.

As I noted...

Peter's understanding had been Matt. 10:23 FIRST; and rightly so; Isaiah 2:1-5; Dan. 2:44; Acts 3:18-26.
 
genuineoriginal

genuineoriginal

New member
Danoh said:
Obnoxious; yes. A bit over zealous; yes. Ever asserting his version of Mid-Acts is the only sound one; yes. A bit lazy on the spell check; yes. A bit ever baiting others with questions he then yells "wrong" about (or, rather; misspells it), yes.

A moron; no.
Click to expand...
The question was asked in regards to him doubting that Cornelius was a member of the body of Christ, which is a name Paul made up to describe the combination of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ.
 
D

Danoh

New member
genuineoriginal said:
The question was asked in regards to him doubting that Cornelius was a member of the body of Christ, which is a name Paul made up to describe the combination of Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ.
Click to expand...

These issues all depend upon where one approaches looking at each of them from.

Certain passages teach a paradigm that one then looks at, or studies out other issues from.

What passages based paradigm or frame of references are you basing your assertions about Cornelius on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top