Israel is still in rejection of her Messiah.
So I'd say yes, blindness is still happened to Israel.
You're going to have to spell out your point for me. What does Elijah have to do with this?
I am definitely an open theist.
The Plot by Bob Enyart
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Israel is still in rejection of her Messiah.
So I'd say yes, blindness is still happened to Israel.
You're going to have to spell out your point for me. What does Elijah have to do with this?
I am definitely an open theist.
Unsettler
Member
2,000 years of predestination to hell? Sounds like Calvinism.
"And if you are willing to receive it, he [John the Baptist] is Elijah who is to come."
Likewise...
And if you are willing to receive it, Solomon's reign fulfilled the territorial promise to Abraham.
Right Divider
Body part
That's irrelevant, since God is doing something different now.
Right Divider
Body part
Isa 60:15-22 (AKJV/PCE)
(60:15) Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through [thee], I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. (60:16) Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD [am] thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. (60:17) For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. (60:18) Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. (60:19) The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. (60:20) Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. (60:21) Thy people also [shall be] all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified. (60:22) A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time.
Israel will not be removed from their land when the promise is fulfilled.
Unsettler
Member
Would you mind elaborating on this?
Right Divider
Body part
Israel was set aside temporarily. So what they are doing 2000 years later relating to their blindness is not relevant.
Unsettler
Member
Narrator: But RightDivider wasn't willing.
No sun, huh? This sounds like new earth. How is this relevant?
Unsettler
Member
It's probably my fault. (I am tired and still don't understand what this means.) I can revisit your point in the morning.
Right Divider
Body part
The point was that the land promise will not be fulfilled until it's made permanent.
Is that really hard to understand?
Unsettler
Member
You might need to think this through a little more. Is new earth going to have the Euphrates River? Is it going to have the River of Egypt? (The borders of Abraham's inheritance.) You can't have it both ways. So much for "new." Will these rivers be draining into holes in the ground? Remember, there is no more sea in new earth.
Right Divider
Body part
New earth does not require the elimination of everything about the current one.
I can see that your confirmation bias will require every idea that you have to be true regardless of other possibilities.
Unsettler
Member
The geography of the present earth is the result of the flood, in my humble opinion. Maybe God really likes the way it all ripped apart and came back together with these current watersheds, and He'll copy it going forward.
Right Divider
Body part
You make many assumptions that you have no evidence to make.
I've had enough of your silliness.
Unsettler
Member
Lol, I was trying to believe in what you just said.
I wish!
I'm no genius, I've just been at this for 20+ years.
Anyone remember what year it was that Bob first offered The Plot manuscript for sale? I watched his TV show every single night and I called and ordered the book the morning after the first time he mentioned it on the air. I got the book a few days later and then basically read the book straight through almost non-stop and I've stayed pretty saturated in Bob's teaching ever since.
Last edited:
I want to say 90s... I'll ask Dominic.
Unsettler
Member
@Clete This is absolutely where I am coming from. It is also why eschatology seems like a fools errand. (God can do what he wants, including giving Abraham's inheritance to rocks). I am getting the sense that Bob is regurgitating the zionist eschatology of Darby and Schofield. Men who were both Calvinists!
In strong contrast, we know that there was a very real chance that God genocided all of Israel in the Wilderness, except Moses. What names then would be inscribed on the 12 gates of His eternal city? Reuben? Judah? No! There wouldn't even be Jews! Salvation would not have come from the Jews, as Jesus said. The only patriarch that would have remained would be Levi. So when Paul says that Jews are our enemy for sake of the Gospel but are beloved for sake of the Patriarchs, we need to temper that with the understanding that God was going to genocide most all of Israel (despite the Patriarchs) if Moses hadn't intervened. A monumental event like 70 AD, though frustrating to zionists (and often overlooked, seemingly intentionally), means something. What that something is, will have to remain to be revealed, but can an abortion of Daniel's 70th week not be a possibility?
I'd suggest that God is creative enough to exalt His law in a myriad of ways, even if He has permanently aborted Daniel's 70th week. This is why I am leary about eschatology. What's the point of trying to guess what our free and creative God is currently planning on doing? Why not just take the posture of: Wait and see? I was really loving The Plot until the eschatology. The book is absolutely filled with priceless gems of insight into what Paul meant and how to reconcile apparent contradictions in how to practice Christianity.
I'm going to reiterate once more than you have not provided any evidence that one syllable of what Bob teaches in The Plot is incorrect and you simply have no reason whatsoever to believe that God has permanently forsaken Israel and you've not refuted a single argument that I've made either.
Instead, you seem stuck on what appears to be some form of preterism and are hyper-focused on the events that took place in 70AD (i.e. dogmatically so?), events that aren't even surprising given the fact that Israel was no longer in covenant relationship with God. If anything, it's surprising that it took four decades to happen, especially given the fact that the temple has been destroyed before, even during the time when Israel definitely was in covenant relationship with God, without creating the thought in anyone's mind that God had permanently forsaken Israel. The temple was simply rebuilt when doing so became possible and it could be rebuilt again and, in fact, there have been plans in place to do just that for decades now.
Speaking of when the temple had been destroyed before. Do you remember why that happened? Israel had so totally forsaken God that they were sacrificing to idols IN GOD'S TEMPLE and doing things like sacrificing their babies to Molech (ancient version of abortion). It was so bad that they had actually forgotten that God's word even existed! Imagine an Israel that had so completely forgotten God and His word that they forgot that there was a such thing as Passover! That happened! (II Kings 22-24). Did God permanently forsake Israel for this? No! He was angry and destroyed both Jerusalem and the Temple but did not forsake Israel permanently because of one guy, King Josiah. The greatest king Israel ever had prior to Christ Himself. If God didn't permanently forsake Israel when they had gotten so evil that He destroyed the temple and Jerusalem Himself, while they were in covenant relationship with Him, then why would anyone think that He would permanently forsake them when the Romans did it while Israel wasn't in covenant relationship with Him? It doesn't make any sense.
It seems every time I sit down to type these posts, a new piece of scripture occurs to me to present to you as evidence that there just isn't any reason whatsoever to believe that God has permanently forsaken Israel.
I think it makes sense at this point to let these points go because we're more or less repeating ourselves now. Let's move instead to something more directly about the specific teaching in Bob's book. Perhaps a good starting point for that would be for you to provide a more specific teaching that Bob presents in The Plot that you believe he fails to establish and what you believe in missing and would be required to establish it. I'm sure that's easier to ask for than it is to provide but give it a shot.
Clete
You need to establish this claim.