39 votes

Must Watch: The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy

Incredible Film

The Roots of Christian Zionism: How Scofield Sowed Seeds of Apostasy

http://vimeo.com/29901084

There are a lot of Christians struggling
with the war issue. They need to watch this
film so they can help to undo the lies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

And according to Professor

And according to Professor Shlomo Sand, Jewish Israeli historian, there was no mass exodus of Jews from the land of Israel all those centuries ago, but rather, the Jews converted to Islam. Therefore, the descendants of the original Israelites are actually present-day Palestinians (who are also the seed of Abraham).

(Other Jewish historians have also noted that there is no evidence there was ever a mass exodus, but it is often repeated anyway.)

Talk about a different paradigm!

If only the Christian Zionists knew there is an entirely opposing perspective out there.

Working for US policy in the mideast that serves AMERICA's interests http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/

We know both and support Ron Paul Anyway

I'm confused who are the 144,000 Jews that are sealed in the book of Revelation (12,000 from 12 tribes)? Who were the Jews in Hitler's Germany who were executed? Let's not go there boys. Who were the Jews when the Balfour Declaration was written? Ron Paul 2012

You'd have to ask the

You'd have to ask the historians about the mass exodus. :) I'm just writing what they said. Worth researching, if for nothing else than to get a better understanding of what really happened.

Of course, no one says NONE of the Jews left... plus there was still migration over the course of many centuries after that time... just that there was no "forced mass exodus" way back then.

Part of the justification for Jews being able to "return" to Israel is the belief that it's "their land" and they were "forced" to leave.

Note also that during the late 1800s / early 1900s when the concept of Zionism was first being promulgated, the great sages & rabbis of Judaism were very much against the creation of a state of Israel as being "against the Torah".

I agree, we all support Ron Paul & that's what matters. I just happen to like learning about other viewpoints - esp those that escaped me for many years (such as the above info) bc only one viewpoint was being endorsed.

Working for US policy in the mideast that serves AMERICA's interests http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/

Read Romans 11

Read Romans 11 which states categorically that the church is a branch of the olive tree (Israel) and that God has blinded them until the fullness of the gentiles be gathered out of the nations into the body of the elect (Church which is neither Jew nor Gentile). Also, any discussion of Armageddon should not ignore Zechariah 12:10. Jesus is coming back for his people (the Jews) and they will look upon him who they have pierced and a fountain of repentance will be open for them. If you read Matthew 24, you will find that Jesus instructs his disciples that the Temple would be destroyed (in 70 AD by Titus the Roman) and yet after that fact the temple would be rebuilt. The Abomination of Desolation requires the defilement of this rebuilt temple. This is fun, but I don't think this is the proper forum for this type of argument. Ron Paul 2012, I think we can both agree on that.

Re: Read Romans 11

There is a great danger, when once we have adhered to one particular school of thought or adopted one particular system of theology, of reading the Bible in the light of that school or system and finding its distinctive features in what we read.

A second and perhaps even greater danger is that of accepting a theory about the pattern of divine revelation without even recognizing that it is a theory, or without looking at other theories to see which theory fits the data best.

Hermeneutics by Henry A. Virkler
http://www.amazon.com/Hermeneutics-Principles-Processes-Bibl...

You stated "Read Romans 11 which states categorically that the church is a branch of the olive tree (Israel) and that God has blinded them until the fullness of the gentiles be gathered out of the nations into the body of the elect

God had to start somewhere and He started with Abraham. You also stated the the elect "Church which is neither Jew nor Gentile." The Church is made up of both Jew and Gentile.

"Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in." Romans 11:25

The hardening is partial because "only the remnant will be saved." How large that remnant is, only God knows, but it began with Christ's first coming and will continue until His second coming.

"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ." Galatians 3:16

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:28-29

Yes, the Gentiles have been grafted in, but that was God's plan from the beginning.

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd."
John 10:16

You will see the same theme if you read Ephesians 2:11-3:6
in its entirety.

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit." ... "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:14-18 , 3:6

Christ's Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 is also mentioned in Mark 13 and Luke 21. Jesus uses the term "Abomination of Desolation" (spoken by Daniel in Dan. 9:24-27) in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. If you look at Luke's version however, it doesn't say 'Abomination of Desolation'. It reads, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." Luke 21:20-21

According to Jesus, the abomination of desolation was to be a sign for believers to flee to the mountains and escape the destruction of Jersualem. Luke clarifies the abomination of desolation was when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. That was the sign for the disciples to flee. Compare the Luke 21 passage with Luke 19:41-44.

As history shows, the city of Jerusalem and the temple (hieron) of God were destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. exactly as Jesus had predicted. All in all, ninety-seven thousand were sold in slavery and one million one hundred thousand perished in the fierce tribulation of those days. Miraculously, during the siege of Jerusalem, not one Christian was killed. The Christian believers escaped God's judgment of Jerusalem by obeying Christ's words and fleeing to Pella in the mountains when they saw the abomination of desolation that Daniel had predicted.

The Greek word for temple used by Jesus and Daniel is HIERON. (physical structure) The Greek word used for temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is NAOS. Every other time Paul uses the word NAOS in the New Testament, Paul refers to it as the Church. NAOS is never referred to as physical building.

This subject is addressed in detail here:

Temple of God, Antichrist and Abomination of Desolation
http://www.todaysamericandream.com/tog.html

At one time, I believed everything you do, because that is what I was taught. But I guess I took the red pill because I had a strong desire to learn. I am thankful that the Lord showed me through someone I met that there are other schools of interpretation which many other Christians have believed over the centuries. It has been a long on going process for me. I think this is also why I was drawn to learn more about Dr. Paul and the money issue about 10 years ago.

As to whether this is the proper forum to discuss these issues, Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" which is what we are trying to do by supporting Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

Enjoy our discussion

I'm new to the Daily Paul. I've only made two posts. One of them is a Reading List For Ron paul supporters. I would appreciate your reading 3 articles and getting some feedback.
Thanks

Todays American Daniel 9 and KJV

At your leisure please compare the Daniel 9 Septuagint version against the KJV http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=9&v=1&t=KJV#1 Daniel 9:26,27

There are a couple of significant differences:
1) In the KJV, it is the people of the prince who shall come that destroys the city and the sanctuary not the parenthetical Titus.
2) The nearest antecedent to the "he" that confirms the covenant is the "prince that shall come" not Jesus.
I submit that the people who destroyed the city were the Romans. The prince that shall come is head of "the Revived Roman Empire" commonly known as the anti-Christ.
3) there is a gap between the 69 weeks and the one week covenant of anti-christ that is subsequent to 70 AD.

Re: Daniel 9 and KJV

I've compared the KJV of Daniel 9:26-27 with the Septuagint version.

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the MESSIAH THE PRINCE [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall MESSIAH be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the PRINCE that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In the KJV, Messiah the Prince, Messiah, Prince = Jesus

People of the Prince who destroyed the city and sanctuary = the Roman army. Compare with Matt. 22:1-7
"The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city." vs. 7

After the 69 weeks Jesus was cutoff. What comes after 69? 70 of course. Jesus confirmed the covenant of Abraham "through your seed all nations will be blessed" and Jeremiah 31. In the middle of the 70th week, after approximately 3 1/2 of ministry His one time sacrifice on the cross put an end to the Old Testament sacrifice and oblation.

No where in these verses does it say that a future Antichrist will make a covenant with some future nation of Israel and allow them to restore the O.T. animal sacrifices in a rebuilt Jewish temple.

The entire futurist interpretation depends on the gap theory between the 69th and 70th week. If the 70th week has already happened, it completely changes one's understanding of eschatology.

While the historical fulfilled interpretation of Daniel's 70th week exhalts Christ's finished work on the cross, the futurist unfulfilled interpretation totally minimizes it.

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through Him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

2 Corinthians 1:20

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

Faulty Math and Gap Theory

1) Each of the seventy "weeks" appointed unto Daniels people (Israel) was equal to 7 years. Sir Robert Anderson - The Coming Prince.
2) Christ died at the end of 69 weeks (483 years after the decree from Artaxerxes Longiamanus (Nehemiah 2:1-9) to restore and rebuild Jerusalem)
3) The Messiah was cut off but not for himself between 29 and 33 AD. Consistent with 69 weeks per Anderson's calculations.
4) If the 70th week was contiguous with the 69th week then Jerusalem should have been destroyed in 40 AD.
5) If you add 1 year to 33 AD as per your reasoning Jerusalem would have been destroyed in 33yrs and 1/7th week.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin390.htm
Here is an Article from Chuck Baldwin who Ron Paul endorsed for POTUS when he dropped out of the 2008 race:

Re: Faulty Math and Gap Theory

Seventy weeks of Daniel = 490 years 1 week = 7 years

Timeline - Decree of Artaxerxes 457 BC + 483 years (69 weeks) brings us around 26 AD when John baptizes Jesus.

The 69 weeks ended with the appearance of Messiah at the time when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

Luke 3:1 - "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" Tiberius, in whose reign Christ was crucified, ruled from 12 - 37 AD. (Halley 758) By counting fifteen years from 12 AD you end up at 26 AD which is when Jesus was baptized and began His public ministry. At the time of Jesus baptism, the sixty-nine weeks were brought to a close.

The Jewish people were aware of Daniel's prophecy and were anticipating the appearance of Messiah. These passages show this anticipation on the part of the Jewish people:

Luke 3:15 - "The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ."

John 1:19-31 - the priest an Levites ask John whether he is the Christ, or Elijah, or the Prophet

John 4:25 - woman at the well knew that Messiah (called Christ) was coming

Mark 1:15 - "The (appointed period of) time is (completed) fulfilled." (Amplified version)

What period of time could Jesus be talking about? Assuming that the people knew what Jesus was talking about, it can only mean that the 69 weeks have been completed, otherwise Jesus' statement makes no sense.

Messiah was to be "cut off" after the 69 weeks. AFTER does not and cannot mean IN or DURING the 69 weeks. If Messiah was to be cut off AFTER the 69 weeks, then there is only one week left in which he could have been "cut off" - the 70th week - after 3 1/2 years of ministry.

Even as there was a timetable for the "coming of Messiah" there was also a specific time in God's plan when Jesus was to be crucified.

John 7:30 - "his time had not yet come"

Matthew 26:18,45 and John 17:1 Jesus' appointed time had come

After the 69 weeks Jesus was cutoff. What comes after 69? 70 of course. Jesus confirmed the covenant of Abraham "through your seed all nations will be blessed" and Jeremiah 31:31-34. In the middle of the 70th week, after approximately 3 1/2 of ministry His one time sacrifice on the cross put an end to the Old Testament sacrifice and oblation. In Malachi 3:1, Jesus is referred to as the "messenger of the covenant." At the Last Supper, Jesus said "this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Hebrews calls Christ the mediator of the covenant. (Hebrews 8:6, 9:15)

Dan 9:27 ... "in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,"

Hebrews 10:4 - "because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin"

Hebrews 7:27, 10:18 - ..."He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself" ... "And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."

Hebrews 10:9, 8:13 - "He sets aside the first to establish the second" ... "By calling this 'new', he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

While Christ's sacrifice put an end to the sacrifice and offering (the Temple veil having been torn), the animal sacrifices continued by the apostate Jews until 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed.

ACTION JACK SAID:
3) The Messiah was cut off but not for himself between 29 and 33 AD. Consistent with 69 weeks per Anderson's calculations.
4) If the 70th week was contiguous with the 69th week then Jerusalem should have been destroyed in 40 AD.

Christ was crucified or "cut off" between 29 and 33 AD, but it was during the 70th week. You are assuming that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple must occur within the 70 week period, but that is not clearly stated in the Daniel passages. Instead the futurist school finds it necessary to read that into the passage in order to maintain the Futurist unfulfilled interpretation of Daniel's 70th week. There are 6 things mentioned in Daniel which would occur within the 70 weeks time frame, but the destruction of Jerusalem was not one of them. I will expand on that in my next reply.

After Christ's resurrection and ascension, the second half of Daniel's 70th week continued with the Gospel being preached primarily to the Jews. It wasn't until Peter's vision in Acts 10 that the 70 weeks ends and the Gospel then begins spreading to the rest of the world.

Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.
If you look at Luke's version however, it doesn't say 'Abomination of Desolation'. It reads, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. FOR THIS IS THE TIME OF PUNISHMENT IN FULFILLMENT OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN." Luke 21:20-21

According to Jesus, the abomination of desolation was to be a sign for believers to flee to the mountains and escape the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke clarifies the abomination of desolation was when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies. That was the sign for the disciples to flee. Compare the Luke 21 passage with Luke 19:41-44. All of the signs predicted by Jesus were signs leading up to 70 AD. Many of them are confirmed in the New Testament writings and also by Josephus. These are NOT signs of His Second Coming. Jesus said that "this generation (the people living at that time) would not pass away until all these things are fulfilled." i.e. the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

In the very next verse Jesus states, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (This IS the Second Coming of Christ) "No one knows about that day or hour, (i.e. the Second Coming of Christ at the "Last Day"), not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"

Therefore, the time frame for the abomination of desolation does not occur within Daniel's 70 weeks.

This reply has been more of a general time line of events in order to "check my math" as you suggested. In my next reply, I will address in greater detail those things which according to Daniel 9:24, must occur within Daniel's 70 weeks. If the 70th week has not yet occurred, then none of the things mentioned in Daniel 9:24 have been fulfilled. Think about that.

By the way, I voted for Chuck Baldwin in 08. I have read and posted many of his articles. While I have the deepest respect for him standing up for the constitution, I do not agree with his views on prophecy.

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

Tad and the 70 Weeks of Daniel

1) Tad 70 weeks (each "week" is a 7 year period of time, therefore 7x70 weeks= 490 years) are determined uopn Israel.

2) The 69th week ended with the crucifixion of Messiah (483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes Longiamanus in 445 B.C.- see Nehemiah 2:1-9) Sir Robert Anderson's "The Coming Prince"

3) The crucifixion of Messiah (end of 69th week) was approximately 32 AD ( between 29 and 33 AD).

4) How can you add 1 year to 33 AD and come up with 70 AD?

5) Even if you add a 70th contiguous week (7 more years) to
33 AD you still arrive at 40 AD.

6) Anti-Christ does make a covenant with Israel for 1 week after Rome destroys the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD.

7) Paul tells us (in Thessalonians 2:1-9) that the "man of sin" must enter into the temple of God and display himself as God prior to coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Paul's letter to Thessalonians was penned approximately 50 AD (10 years after a contiguous 70th week of Daniel).

There is a gap here 30 years or almost 2000 years. I would remind you that Christ told us " I came in my father's name and you received me not, another (singular) will come in his own name and him you will receive". There is an individual called "the man of sin"; "the little horn"; "the prince that shall come" etc.

You have your commentaries, I have mine, but before you let a commentary persuade you that Paul said "God forbid" that you think he has abandoned his people Israel, Jesus has said he will gather his people Israel under his wings like a chicken her chicks when they say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord".

Abomination of Desolation - Future or Fulfilled?

Items 1-5 have already been addressed here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

ACTION JACK STATED:
6) Anti-Christ does make a covenant with Israel for 1 week after Rome destroys the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD.

Other than using the futurist interpretation of Daniel 9:27, there is no other place in the entire Bible that teaches a 'covenant' between the Jews and the antichrist. Out of 281 references to the word "covenant" in the Bible according to Young's Analytical Concordance, not one of these references in any way introduces the idea of a covenant between the Jews and the antichrist. There is no a hint anywhere that such a covenant is suggested, intended, proposed, or prophesied at any time. Concerning the covenant between believers and the Messiah there are many scores of such references. The are found in almost every book of the Bible. The reason is because when the Jews broke the Old Covenant, (see Jeremiah 31:31-34), then God purposed to make a new and everlasting covenant with His people. All the prophets refer to it and Daniel foretold that it would be ratified in the seventieth week of his prophesy.

The word for "covenant" in Daniel 9:27 is "Bereeth." A lengthy exposition in the Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 29, p. 275 points out that "Bereeth" is only used in connection with a Divine Covenant. It is never used to designate a "league" with any other power or force but is always reserved to describe a covenant between God and man. For that reason the covenant cannot apply to anyone except the Messiah. It cannot possibly describe a covenant with the antichrist or any political group involving apostate Jews.

In the LXX version Daniel 9:27 reads, "and in the midst of the week MY sacrifice and drink offering shall be taken away." As long as the Old Covenant was still in effect, God considered the sacrifices under that economy to be His sacrifices. Since Christ has instituted the New Covenant with the sacrifice of Himself, there is no more sacrifice for sin. God would never call animal sacrifices by apostate Jews 2000 years after His Son paid the price for the Redemption of man "MY sacrifice."

The futurist interpretation attempts to connect the ceasing of the sacrifices in the middle of the seventieth week with a "breaking" of the covenant. In "Great Prophecies of the Bible" Woodrow states, "The text says the covenant will be confirmed for a "week" - seven years. Then mention is made of an event that will take place in the MIDDLE of the seven years: sacrifice and oblation will cease. THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO ASSUME THAT THE SECOND EVENT IS THE UNDOING OF THE FIRST. It is only after a person has the idea in mind that the covenant will be broken - which the text does NOT say - that anyone would ever conclude that the covenant has to do with restored sacrifices."

ACTION JACK STATED:
7) Paul tells us (in Thessalonians 2:1-9) that the "man of sin" must enter into the temple of God and display himself as God prior to coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Paul's letter to Thessalonians was penned approximately 50 AD (10 years after a contiguous 70th week of Daniel).

The futurist interpretation assumes that the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9 exhalting himself in God's temple is the same event as the abomination of desolation. A problem arises with this assumption with this interpretation when the word "temple" is examined in the original language.

The Greek word for temple used by Jesus and Daniel is HIERON. (physical structure) The Greek word used for temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is NAOS. Every other time Paul uses the word NAOS in the New Testament, Paul refers to it as the Church. NAOS is never referred to as physical building. The apostle Paul used the word "temple (naos) of God" nine times throughout the New Testament. A careful study of the first eight references that Paul made to the "temple (naos) of God" reveals that he NEVER applied this word to the Jewish temple. The following is every reference to the word NAOS by the apostle Paul.

1. Acts 17:24 - God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

2. 1 Corinthians 3:16 - Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

3. 1 Corinthians 3:17 - If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;

4. 1 Corinthians 3:17 - for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

5. 1 Corinthians 6:19 - What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

6. 2 Corinthians 6:16 - And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?

7. 2 Corinthians 6:16 - for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

8. Ephesians 2:21 - In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

9. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 - Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

In the first eight Scriptures sited, Paul consistently uses the Greek word NAOS to refer to the Church - the body of believers. For that reason, I feel that it is inconsistent to force an interpretation onto 2 Thessalonians 2:4 which holds that the passage refers to a literal rebuilt Jewish temple.

If the abomination of desolation has already taken place, then what about the passage in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2? Let's take a closer look at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 - Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 Thessalonians 2:2 - That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Thessalonians 2:4 - Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

2 Thessalonians 2:5 - Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

2 Thessalonians 2:6 - And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 - For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 - And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

These passages are addressed in detail here:

Temple of God, Antichrist and Abomination of Desolation
http://www.todaysamericandream.com/tog.html

You may find it interesting to know that the Protestant Reformers were unanimous in their understanding of who the "man of sin" refers to.

The Antichrist and the Protestant Reformation

http://endrtimes.blogspot.com/2007/01/anti-christ-and-protes...

Also, the Futurist school of interpretation had its origins during the Catholic counter reformation for the sole purpose of attempting to shift the focus away from the Protestant Reformers' view.

You can read about that here:

A History of the Foundation of Futurism and Preterism
http://gospel-herald.com/futurism_history.htm

Francisco Ribera
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Francisco_Ribera

Historicism, Futurism, Ribera and the Counter Reformation
http://www.revelation-today.com/A6Ribera.htm

Seventy Weeks
http://www.historicist.com/daniel/seventy-weeks

The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm

ACTION JACK said:

Paul said "God forbid" that you think he has abandoned his people Israel, Jesus has said he will gather his people Israel under his wings like a chicken her chicks when they say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord".

This has been addressed here:

The Remnant of Israel - God's Sovereign Choice
http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

and here:

Re: Read Romans 11
http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

Action Jack, I do not doubt your sincerity. However, there are a few things which I have had to change in the way I study the Bible.

1. The Bible will interpret itself if we allow it by doing word studies and topical studies and comparing all of the passages in order to understand what the Bible has to say about the subject.

2. It is better to let clear consistent passages be used to formulate views and then use those views when trying to understand difficult and obscure verses, rather than vice versa

3. "It is sound exegesis to harmonize the Old Testament with the higher light of the New Testament and not vice versa. Whatever Christ taught by His Holy Spirit through the Apostles is final, authoritative, and infallible. Therefore, we cannot go first-hand to the prophecies in order to explain the New Testament by them. We must enter, rather the prophecies with the New Testament key, by which they are opened to us either by express quotations, the history of facts, or by doctrine."

- Predictive Prophesy by George B. Fletcher

By the way, I do not consider myself to be a Preterist or a Futurist.

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

Abomination of Desolation - Future or Fulfilled?

You have raised a number of interesting points and say you are neither a preterist nor a fururist. I have had a lot of teachers over the years, but my favorite is Marvin Rosenthal.
Marv's approach to the seven churches of Revelation Chapters two and three would affirm that there were seven actual churches (who were representative of all church virtues and vices) who had actual 90 AD problems (and I have read Kenneth Gentry) which were true at that time. They will be true at the end of the age. His approach is a combination of preterist and futurist. Indeed the Revived Roman Empire is a continuation of The First Century Roman Empire.

A strictly preterist approach to the many passages you cite presents a lot of problems for interpreters for that school.
1) The vast majority of early church fathers (when they addressed the issue) expected to encounter the antichrist not only after 70 AD, but after 170 AD in most cases: AD:
http://biblelight.net/fathers-on-antichrist.htm

2)The early church fathers were chialists (pre-mils)

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/premil.shtml

In my view, the allegorical method of interpretation of scripture (especially and mostly related to prophesy) was adopted by Augustine after Constantine converted to Christianity. Israel as a nation was no longer in the land, the Church was no longer being persecuted, and calling your benefactor the leader of a beast kingdom was no more popular then, then it would be now.

I would like to go back to Romans 11 with you and ask you to consider answering the questions I ask without going outside the book of Romans and using a basic hermeneutic (never could spell that word). In other words when Paul refers to the "elect" he means the church and when he says Israel, he means the race of Israel (that's why he identifies with Israel because he is from the tribe of Benjamin and is an Israelite himself "after the flesh".

1) When Paul says "God forbid" twice what does he mean?
2) When Paul say Israel is currently "blind" what does he mean?
3) When Paul says that Israel (not the Church) when she exercises faith will be accepted back and regrafted in, what does he mean?
4)Is Paul a member of the elect? Is he an Israelite? Is there a distinction?

Re: Abomination of Desolation - Future or Fulfilled?

Good to hear from you again Action Jack.

You stated:

I would like to go back to Romans 11 with you and ask you to consider answering the questions I ask without going outside the book of Romans and using a basic hermeneutic (never could spell that word). In other words when Paul refers to the "elect" he means the church and when he says Israel, he means the race of Israel (that's why he identifies with Israel because he is from the tribe of Benjamin and is an Israelite himself "after the flesh".

I see the "elect" i.e. the church, as a combination of all those believers both Jew and Gentile who have faith in Christ. Yes, Paul was himself and Israelite after the flesh, but he was also part of the "elect" or the Church. Paul makes the distinction between the two in Romans 9:6-7: "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children."

Without going outside the book of Romans, I would have to look at Romans 9-11 to really see what Paul is saying in his build up to Romans 11. I think I've addressed much of that here:

The Remnant of Israel - God's Sovereign Choice
http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

You stated:

1) When Paul says "God forbid" twice what does he mean?

I see it meaning that not ALL Jews have been rejected. The "remnant" (which Paul shows that he is one) were, are and will be saved until Christ returns. The first believers were Jews and there are "Messianic" Jewish believers who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

2) When Paul say Israel is currently "blind" what does he mean?

Paul says that "blindness in part is happened to Israel." I see it as consistent with his previous passages concerning the remnant. No one will be saved because of their race. Only by grace through faith in Christ.

3) When Paul says that Israel (not the Church) when she exercises faith will be accepted back and regrafted in, what does he mean?

Paul answers that in Romans 9:30-33 and Romans 11:11-12.
There may come a time when large numbers of Jews accept Christ and become part of the Church.

What does "all Israel" mean? I see only 3 possible answers:

1. All Israel is all Jewish people as a race

2. All Israel is all Jew and Gentile believers who have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior (Messiah)

3. All Israel is all descendants of Israel from Christ's first coming until his second coming who accept Christ as Messiah and are therefore part of the Remnant.

You said:

4)Is Paul a member of the elect? Yes

Is he an Israelite? (After the flesh? Yes. He is also part of the believing Israel remnant, i.e. the Church, who has faith in Christ.

Is there a distinction? Only in the fact that he happens to have been a part of the early Jewish remnant believers of the Church (elect) and that gentiles would also be added.

I know you asked to stay within the Book of Romans, but it makes sense to me to see what Paul has to say elsewhere in his writings. If I understand Romans correctly, then Paul's other writings should be consistent with that interpretation which I believe they are.

Paul clarifies this here:

"Consider Abraham: "He believed God and it was credited to as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Galatians 3:6-9

"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ." Galatians 3:16

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:28-29

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two ONE and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself ONE new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this ONE body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit." ... "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of ONE body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:14-18 , 3:6

Do you believe that the Church is mentioned in the Old Testament?

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

Church in Old Testament

I don't know the text, but it has something to do with Israel being referred to as the church (lower case) meaning a called out assembly. Do I think the Church was in existence before Christ's incarnation? No, I think he told Peter, in Matthew 16 that upon Peter's "confession of faith in Christ" that Christ would (future tense) build his Church. The Church was founded upon the Prophets and Apostles (Christ himself being the chief cornerstone). In the Church every member was to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Not true of old testament believers, or even the Apostles before Christ's resurrection. By the way when the KJV translators translated elohim (a plural name for God- "im" endings are plural like our letter "s") they translated the word with a capital "G" and singular ending "God". When they translated the same word to mean demons or false gods, these translators used the lower case "g" and added a plural ending "s" and translated elohim as "gods". I personally can't think of a greater contrast then the contrast of the creator of heaven and earth and the demonic hordes. Context means something.

Do I think that there is universal salvation for Jews (or Israelis), no I don't; but I do believe that all Jews who look to Christ for salvation (after the Great Tribulation is cut short) will be saved and Christ will physically rule over them (and the rest of the world) not spiritually from the throne room of God, but overtly and physically from David's throne in Jerusalem (not Washington DC, London, or anyplace else). The only salvation for Jews in the current "Church Age" is by accepting Christ as Savior and Lord, just like the gentiles. At his return (parousia) every eye will see him. I guess the early church fathers just blinked and missed it somehow.

In Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Conference, James says that the prophets have declared that God will call out of gentiles as people for his name (Christians - like at Antioch) and after that he will rebuild the tabernacle of David.

I believe all salvation comes through a belief in Jesus (as he was known) the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the son of David (the Lord said to my Lord). It was impossible to please God with the blood of bulls and goats, but without shedding blood there is no remission of sin. "And Abraham believed (in the seed promise - there was also a geographical promise forever...and that doesn't mean until 70 AD). Sacrifice of Animals couldn't save anyone, but if you believed, you needed to have blood shed on your behalf to demonstrate your awareness of sin and the need for atonement as early in the old testament as Able, and Adam and Eve. You don't get skins to wear to cover your nakedness without killing an animal or two.

I agree that when Paul says God Forbid, he means that God doesn't want you to even think that the preceding question could possibly be answered in the affirmative. Has God cast away his people that he knew beforehand (Israel)? Don't even think that!!! Go to your Blueletter Bible and look how it is used everywhere else in Romans. Should we sin that God's Grace should the more abound? God Forbid!!! Check it out for yourselves and don't let word games get in your way.

I am an adherent to the "Prewrath Rapture of the Church" brand of dispensationalism which means that (if the 70th week of Daniel starts in my lifetime), I expect to encounter antichrist and Great Tribulation. If you are right, I'm still good (nobody but a fool looks forward to being a martyr - Jesus wasn't crazy about drinking that cup either). If I am right, that day (The Day Of The Lord) will not overcome me like a thief because I am not in the darkness. One of the primary reasons Marvin Rosenthal wrote his book was because he didn't want pre-mils to get caught up in the escapist mindset of a pre-tribulation rapture (I'll get out of here before things get real bad). If you think the antichrist is a boogeyman, I urge you to reconsider, and let every man be persuaded in his own heart.

This is a Ron Paul website, right? I'm not getting a lot of love here guys. I'm voting for Ron Paul because I think he's got the best foreign policy. I think Israel is protected by God (Psalm 2 and Zechariah 12) and that's a lot better protection than our military can provide. You also mentioned that Israel is not joined to any other covenant with antichrist except the (misapprended on my part) covenant in Daniel. Google "Israel's Covenant with Death and Hell" and read about that covenant which won't be permitted to stand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prewrath .Here is how to prepare for Great Tribulation: http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/page/how-to-prepare-for-tri...

Concerning the Rapture

You said:

"I am an adherent to the "Prewrath Rapture of the Church" brand of dispensationalism which means that (if the 70th week of Daniel starts in my lifetime), I expect to encounter antichrist and Great Tribulation."

I have arrived at this point in my understanding of eschatology by trying to look at clear passages of scripture and seeing what is consistent in those passages.

As soon as the word prophecy is mentioned, most people immediately think the Book of Revelation as the starting point. However, the Book of Revelation is not the only place in the New Testament where eschatological events such as the Second Coming, Resurrection of the dead, Antichrist, Judgment, etc. are mentioned. There are many passages in the New Testament from which to develop a Scriptural understanding of the Second Coming, the Resurrection, Judgment Day, the Millenium and other eschatalogical teaching by systematically studying the Gospels and Epistles. While Christians should be familiar with the various schools of interpretation regarding the Book of Revelation, each interpretation, whether the Preterist view, the Continual Historical view, the Futurist Dispensational view or the Idealist view has its strengths and weaknesses along with its own able defenders. Being convinced of which view is the correct interpretation, is not necessary in order to understand the basic eschatological teachings of the Christian faith. It is dangerous to use one's perception of the "correct" interpretation of the Book of Revelation as the 'sine qua non' for interpreting other eschatological passages in the New Testament. Instead, our understanding of Christian eschatology should be derived from the clear passages of the New Testament and then used as the starting point in trying to arrive at the "correct" interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

He are 8 short questions to stimulate your thinking concerning the Rapture. I will only include the questions with the two possible answers. Read each question and choose your answer. After answering the 8 questions, you can compare your answers with related scripture verses here:

http://www.todaysamericandream.com/aqotr.html

1. During what time period does the resurrection of both good and bad people take place?

A. The good and bad are resurrected in one hour.

B. The good are resurrected 1007 years before the bad

2. Is the Rapture a “secret” event? That is, is it quiet and inconspicuous?

A. The Rapture is quiet. None of the unbelievers who are left know that anything has happened, except noticing the disappearance of Christians and babies

B. The Rapture is noisy, because when Christ comes back the heavens and earth pass away with a great noise, and the elements melt with fervent heat.

3. What happens to the earth when Christ returns at the Rapture?

A. The earth is destroyed the same day.

B. It lasts another 1007 years before being destroyed.

4. How many days are there after the Rapture?

A. There are at least 367,555 days (1007 years worth) after the Rapture.

B. There are no more days after the Rapture. The Rapture begins eternity.

5. When does the Day of Judgment occur, the Day wherein the inhabitants of the earth are judged and sent to either heaven or hell forever?

A. The Day of Judgment occurs when Jesus comes back in glory.

B. The Day of Judgment occurs 1000 years after Jesus comes back in glory.

6. When does the Rapture take place?

A. 1007 years before the end of the world.

B. The same time as the end of the world.

7. Do people die on earth after the Rapture?

A. Yes, death isn't done away with for 1007 years after the Rapture.

B. No, human death ends with the Rapture.

8. Is the Antichrist revealed before or after the Rapture?

A. The Antichrist is revealed before the Rapture.

B. The Antichrist is revealed after the Rapture.

Check your answers with Scripture here:

http://www.todaysamericandream.com/aqotr.html

Let me know what you think.

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

Rapture and resurrection

I would direct your attention to the Pre-wrath Rapture Link sent to you previously. The short answer to your question is that the first resurrection is qualitative in nature. It occurs in stages (Christ was resurrected as the first fruit of the resurrection), an innumerable number of believers are resurrected at his parousia (revelation 7:9-17) after 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel (12,000 per tribe) are sealed and a final group are resurrected after the chaining of Satan at the initiation of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. The analogy given is both qualatative and agricultural in nature. All fruit does not ripen at the same time. "Blessed and Holy is he that hath part in first resurrection (Rev 20:6). But the rest of the dead remained dead until the thousand years were finished and that is the second resurrection which is qualatativley bad.

http://www.zionshope.org/zionsfire/articles/trojan_horse.html

There is a link to a study of the book of Revelation linked to the Wikipedia Pre-Wrath link http://www.revelationcommentary.org/ which will give you a much more detailed analysis of this subject. I'm curious, why do you add 7 years to the 1000 years between the first and second resurrection?

The prophets had two ages in mind for planet earth, and the first age started with the fall and continues through today. This first age is bad. Between the first age and the commencement of the second age (where the lion lies down with the lamb, the earth brings forth its full bounty,etc),
there is a brief time known as The Day of The Lord. The Day of the Lord is described in Joel, and it is also described in the Book of Revelation. When John says that he was in the spirit on the Lord's Day, that figure of speech could mean that he was in the spirit on The Day of The Lord. In the commentary I linked, the writer attributes the Lord's Day to Sunday. Marv Rosenthal has expressed the alternative view. That is the only variant I've noticed so far, but there may be more. I'm just reading it myself.

Why do you attribute Christ's statement that his Kingdom is not of this world to mean that it is a purely spiritual kingdom? The way I see it, Christ came the first time as a lamb to be slain and his second coming will be as King of Kings to rule and to judge. He will come back as a legitimate heir (son of David) to a legitimate throne on planet earth in Jerusalem. That's why the Kingdoms of this Earth are become the Kingdom of God and Christ. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven has not become a reality yet because we are still living in the bad age.

You also asked if the rapture is quiet and inconspicuous, or secret? No, it is not, Christ's second coming (parousia) isn't secret either. When the disciples asked Christ what would be the "sign" of his coming and the end of the world (Age)in Matthew 24. He told them that the sun would be darkened and the moon would not give her light (same as in Joel 2 - Day of the Lord) and then shall appear the "sign" of Christ's coming (parousia) and it won't be secret. Every eye shall see him, in Revelation the earth dwellers cry out for the mountains to cover them to protect them from the wrath of the Lamb. Pre-wrath advocates only see one Darkening of the sun and moon (with of course the darkening during Christ's crucifixion being a separate event). I view it as a marker for The Day of The Lord.

I want to examine your passages on the throne of David being equated with the throne of God in more detail. At first blush, I would say that Solomon ruled from an earthly throne that was established by Heaven in the Davidic covenant.

Have you read, or viewed, the other links I've sent you?

Re: Rapture and resurrection

Hi Action Jack

I believe I stated in an earlier post that Christians should base their belief systems on clear passages of scripture and then use those views to find the proper interpretation of the more difficult passages and not vice versa. Just as "systematic theology" is the best way to arrive at sound biblical doctrine in areas of salvation, etc., I believe that "systematic eschatology" is the best way to develop one's views in the area of prophesy and eschatology. My arguments have been supported primarily by allowing scripture to interpret itself and also by historical fact, though I have used some quotes from others which help to clarify those points.

You asked:
Have you read, or viewed, the other links I've sent you? Yes, I briefly viewed them, but not in depth because I understand the case that they are trying to build.

Please understand that I am already familiar with the futurist pre-trib pre-millennial school of interpretation along with most of their arguments. I used to believe that system. Most all of their positions are based on using a questionable interpretation of certain difficult passages and then forcing it onto the simple and clear passages while calling it "rightly dividing the word"

In all honesty, if I may make an analogy. The same feeling that Ron Paul supporters (those who have come to understand and appreciate principle and truth) get during debates when they have to suffer through listening to the other candidates spewing forth the same status quo BS with perhaps a few variations on some minor issues, are the same feelings that I get since I've come to understand the other eschatological schools of interpretation.

Just as Dr Paul's supporters hunger and thirst to hear (and share) Dr. Paul cut to the real issues with clarity and sanity, I desire for God's people to have the eyes of their understanding opened.

The way Dr. Paul frequently states that America's current economic, monetary and foreign policy is flawed and needs a change of direction, is the same way I feel concerning the direction that fundamental evangelical Christianity has taken. I believe the video that started this whole thread is crucial in waking Christians up along with proper understanding of God's word. What did you think of the video which started this thread?

While I certainly do not claim to know and understand everything in the Bible, I can honestly say that having studied both the futurist and historical views, the historical interpretation is much much more solidly built on scripture and it exalts Christ's finished work on the cross when compared with the futurist view.

Most of your replies to scripture that I have provided have been to avoid dealing with the scripture and either attempt to explain or provide a link which defends the futurist interpretation mostly by using questionable interpretations of a few verses of scripture. The question is, what saith the scriptures?

Have you read the scripture verses that I have used here?

http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

I have shown how a futurist must, out of necessity, read into key verses things which are really not there. One example is assuming that causing the sacrifice to cease in the middle of Daniel's 70th week = breaking of the covenant.

You said
The prophets had two ages in mind for planet earth, and the first age started with the fall and continues through today. This first age is bad. Between the first age and the commencement of the second age (where the lion lies down with the lamb, the earth brings forth its full bounty,etc),

Do you have any scripture to prove the two ages for planet earth?

Hebrews 1:1 says in times past God spoke through his prophets, but in these last days he has spoken through his Son.

I see the last days as having begun with the ascension of Christ and ending at the last day when Christ returns at the general Resurrection and Judgment day.

What verse of scripture says that the lion lies down with the lamb? Isaiah 11:6 says "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb." Of course Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 10:16 "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

Did you review the scripture that is provided here which gives the scriptural answer to each of the eight questions?

http://www.todaysamericandream.com/aqotr.html

If not, please do so. If you already have, then please respond to the scripture and explain why they really do not provide the correct answers to the question.

You asked:
Why do you attribute Christ's statement that his Kingdom is not of this world to mean that it is a purely spiritual kingdom?

Because what is seen is temporary and what is unseen is eternal.

Jesus said "All power / authority in heaven and earth has been given to me" Do you believe him?

Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If we believe He has ALL power and authority, is there any that He doesn't have?

Why would Jesus sitting on some throne in the city of Jerusalem after He has already been given all power and authority and is seated at the right hand of God somehow bring Him more glory than He already has?

Will there be mortal beings coexisting in Jerusalem with glorified spiritual beings? show me scripture to prove that

I try to not be too dogmatic on interpreting Revelation, but I will address Revelation 20 since that is the only place in the Bible that pre-millennialists can use in order to try and defend that position.

Please notice that in Revelation 20:1-10

1) Nothing is said about a rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem

2)Nothing about people coming to Jerusalem in order to worship

3) Nothing about Christ reigning in Jerusalem

4) Nothing about animal sacrifices

5) Nothing about the absence of war or sin

6) What it says is that Satan is bound with a chain for a thousand years so that he cannot DECEIVE the nations.

7) The chain cannot be literal or physical (as a spiritual being cannot be chained by a physical chain) I believe the chain represents limitation just as a dog's chain places limits on the animal, the chain limits the devil as to what he can and cannot do, i.e. from deceiving the nations,

2 Peter 2:4 - For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

8) The Greek word for bind/bound is deo. In Matthew 12:28-29, Jesus said: "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man'[s house and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

The word used for bind in Matthew 12:29 is deo same as in Revelation 20. Compare that with Luke 10:1-20

And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Not withstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto your; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

John 12:31-32 - Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Colossians 2:15 - And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Hebrews 2:14-16 - For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

1 John 3:8 - He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Is Christ reigning spiritually? Yes According to Psalm 110:1 which is the most quoted O.T. verse in the N.T.,
He must continue to do so while remaining at the right hand of the Father until all of his enemies have been placed under His feet.

1 Corinthians 15:23-26 -
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the Kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

When is death destroyed? When the last trumpet sounds death is swallowed up in victory at the resurrection at the last day.

Resurrection of believers at the last day/last trumpet;

1 Corinthians 15:51-55
John 6:39,40,44,54
John 11:17-27

Resurrection of both good and bad people;
John 5:28-30

Judgment of the bad people:

John 12:48 - There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

So Jesus said that He would raise believers at the LAST DAY

He said an hour is coming in which ALL those in the grave would come forth both good and bad.

Jesus said those who reject him would be judged at the LAST DAY

Paul says the Jesus must reign from heaven until he comes back when death is swallowed up at resurrection which is at the LAST DAY

Then Jesus will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father. and the eternal state begins. I cannot find any place in those scriptures that suggest Jesus will sit on some throne in Jerusalem. Nor can I find 1000 years between the resurrection of the good and the resurrection and judgment of the bad.

These are all clear statements in scripture, not statements from scripture that is clearly filled with symbols and imagery.

You said:
I'm curious, why do you add 7 years to the 1000 years between the first and second resurrection?

You are again assuming that the premillenial interpretation has to be read into Revelation 20. The 7 years were added for those who believe in the pre-trib rapture and resurrection of the dead in Christ. But it doesn't matter. You can simply remove the 7 years from each of those questions and the correct scriptural answer to the question is still the same.

According to Revelation 1:6, Jesus has made believers KINGS and priests. Do you feel like a king in an earthly sense?

John 5:24
I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Romans 5:17
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ

Romans 6:14
"... offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; ..."

Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne

Ephesians 2:6
... seated with Christ in the heavenly realms

2 Timothy 2:11-12
Here is a trustworthy saying;'If we died with him,
we will also live with him;
if we endure, we will also reign with him

Ephesians 5:14
"Wake up O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you"

Philipians 3:10-11
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

It is a spiritual reality that Christ now reigns, that unbelievers are spiritually dead, the born again believers have been spiritually resurrected.

Revelation 20:6
"Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection.
The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years."

I do not see the 1000 years as a literal period of time. The book of Revelation is full of imagery which everybody will admit. So why MUST the 1000 years be literal except to defend a preconceived belief in another temporary time period between the present and eternity. I see the 1000 years as an large indefinite period of time between Christ's 1st and 2nd coming. I see the first resurrection (though with some difficulty) as being spiritual. The clear passages of the N.T. do not mention any millennial reign after the resurrection and judgment at the LAST DAY. Paul says that at that time, Christ hands over the Kingdom to God the Father. I believe at that time, eternity begins with a new heaven and earth, as mentioned in Revelation 21

In 1 Thes. 4, Paul says the Day of the Lord that comes like a thief is when the Rapture and resurrection take place.

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Even Job is in agreement:

Job 14:10-12

10. But man dieth, and wasteth away: yeah, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
11. As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:
12. So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Matthew 24:35-36
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

About David's Throne

You said:

Do I think that there is universal salvation for Jews (or Israelis), no I don't; but I do believe that all Jews who look to Christ for salvation (after the Great Tribulation is cut short) will be saved and Christ will physically rule over them (and the rest of the world) not spiritually from the throne room of God, but overtly and physically from David's throne in Jerusalem (not Washington DC, London, or anyplace else).

Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted O.T. verse in the N.T.

The LORD said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."

Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43: Acts 2:34-35;
1 Cor. 15:25; Ephesians 1:20-23; Hebrews 1:13

God promised David that one of his descendants would sit on his throne.

2 Samuel 7:12-13; Psalm 89:3-4,132:11; Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30

If we take a closer look at Peter's words on the day of Pentecost, we notice that Christ's exaltation as Lord was the fulfillment of the prophecy given to David that of his seed one would be raised up to sit on his throne.

See Acts 2:29-36

As Ralph Woodrow states:

"According to Peter's message on the day of Pentecost, the resurrection of Christ and his exaltation IN HEAVEN fulfilled these prophecies. Peter understood that Christ's exaltation upon the throne of David was to take place while David was STILL SLEEPING WITH HIS FATHERS.

Peter obviously did not mean Jesus was raised from the dead so that 2,000 years later he would sit on David's throne as futurists suppose. Many of the Jewish people believed in a resurrection at the last day (John 11:24). Had Peter been speaking of one taking the throne of David AFTER the resurrection at the last day, the prophecy could then apply to David himself or someone else. Peter's whole argument would have lost its point. It was while
David still slept with his fathers that Christ was raised up to sit on his throne.

Some think the throne of David can only mean a literal, earthly throne in Jerusalem - a ruler ship over fleshly Jews - in a postponed kingdom of the future. But even in the O.T. era, the "throne of David" was not a term limited strictly to David, but was also called "the throne of the Lord." For example, we read: "Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father..." (1 KINGS 2:12), and a parallel place says: "Then Solomon sat on the THRONE OF THE LORD as king instead of David his father..." (1 Chron. 29:23)

When Christ ascended into heaven, he sat down in the divine throne. Thus he said in Rev. 3:21: "I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." The throne of David in the O.T. was but a type of the true throne of God upon which Christ is seated.

The throne of David cannot mean a literal throne in Jerusalem, for Christ fulfilled the prophecy about sitting on David's throne by ascending into heaven where he was exalted as Lord and Christ. He has "the key of David" so that he opens and no man shuts, he shuts and no man opens (Rev. 3:7). Such a key is obviously not a literal key, not some relic handed down from the days of David. And by the same token, "the tabernacle of David" was not understood by the apostles as a literal tabernacle. In each case, the former was but a type of the spiritual reality as explained in the N.T."

Ralph Woodrow - His Truth Is Marching On

Christ already sits on David's throne. He already is King of Kings and has all authority in heaven and earth.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" Matt. 28:18

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. Daniel 7:13-14

Regardless of what is going on in the world around us, the spiritual reality and spiritual truth is that Christ already has ALL Power and Authority in heaven and earth.

As Paul says in Ephesians:

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation so that you my know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way....And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 1:17-23; 2:6-7

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

David's Throne

1) Can you show me any scripture to support your contention that the Father's throne in heaven is David's throne on earth? Typological interpretations will not be accepted.

2) Can you show me any evidence that the sun, moon, and stars have disappeared from the sky? Again, not typological, I mean overtly and visually? If not Israel's stature as a nation before God is still in effect. By the way, I saw a huge yellow moon driving home last night in my car.

http://noreligionjustjesus.blogspot.com/2006/08/has-god-fors...

3) Peters statement about the resurrection in Acts 2 seems to me to be an assertion that David was talking about his son when he was talking about Jesus not seeing corruption. If David was talking about himself, why isn't his tomb empty and why did he suffer corruption? And why would Peter say that David's tabernacle would be rebuilt if his throne is now in heaven (Acts 15)? I grew up believing, and still believe, in the Apostles Creed and Christ has ascended into heaven from which he shall come to judge the quick and the Dead.

4) Neither of us is denying that all authority has been given to Jesus in heaven and on earth. You would have a tough sell pointing out that he is visibly ruling on earth at the present time. If so, why did so many people boo Ron Paul quoting the golden rule at the recent South Carolina Debates and live to tell about it?

I don't really think you and I are going to agree on how prophesy should be interpreted. Can we at least agree that Ron Paul is our candidate for President?

I have quite a few postings on other topics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpLl05qk-7s

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wanniski/wanniski22.html

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01/santorum-dead-scientists-wond...

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA485511

David's Throne

1) Can you show me any scripture to support your contention that the Father's throne in heaven is David's throne on earth?

"Then sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father..." (1 KINGS 2:12), and a parallel place says: "Then Solomon sat on the THRONE OF THE LORD as king instead of David his father..." (1 Chron. 29:23)

2) Can you show me any evidence that the sun, moon, and stars have disappeared from the sky? Again, not typological, I mean overtly and visually? If not Israel's stature as a nation before God is still in effect

I assume you are referring to Matthew 24:29-30.

In his Olivet Discourse Jesus used apocalyptic language which is used in the O.T. concerning judgment on various nations. Here are some examples

A Prophecy Against Babylon

Isaiah 13:10 - The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

Judgment against the nations

Isaiah 34:4 - All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; and the starry host will fail like withered leaves from a vine.

Joel 2:28-32 - Peter quotes this in Acts 2:17-21 on the day of Pentecost and says that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled. (pouring out of the Holy Spirit and the judgment to come) The same type of apocalyptic language that Jesus used in Matthew 24 is used in Joel and by Peter preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD

"I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great glorious day of the Lord."

I don't believe you can prove that any of the above examples visually and overtly took place.

3) Peters statement about the resurrection in Acts 2 seems to me to be an assertion that David was talking about his son when he was talking about Jesus not seeing corruption. If David was talking about himself, why isn't his tomb empty and why did he suffer corruption? And why would Peter say that David's tabernacle would be rebuilt if his throne is now in heaven (Acts 15)?

I think David is referring to the resurrection at the last day for himself and also that Christ would be resurrected and his body would not see decay.

Actually James quotes the Amos passage about the tabernacle of David and applies it to what Peter had just described how God was bringing the gentiles along with the remnant as a people for Himself. In other words, that is the restoring of David's Tabernacle.

I too was raised on the Nicene Creed and still believe it. It's basically the same as the Apostles Creed.

I believe that when Christ comes again, that's it. The resurrection and judgment day will be at the last day. Then the eternal state will be ushered in.

4) Neither of us is denying that all authority has been given to Jesus in heaven and on earth. You would have a tough sell pointing out that he is visibly ruling on earth at the present time. If so, why did so many people boo Ron Paul quoting the golden rule at the recent South Carolina Debates and live to tell about it?

Just because Jesus is not visibly ruling on earth does not mean that he isn't ruling. He is at the right hand of the Father until His enemies become a footstool for his feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death which will happen at the resurrection. His kingdom is not outward and visible. I believe Daniel's 70th week is refers to Jesus and has been fulfilled. The abomination of desolation and Jerusalem being trampled until the "times of the gentiles" being fulfilled in 70 AD. I see the "times of the gentiles" and the "full number of gentiles coming in" as 2 completely different things. Israel having a "blindness in part until the full number of gentiles is come in" is ongoing until Jesus returns at the Last day. I see the "man of sin" of 2 Thess. as the "Little Horn" of Daniel 7. That which restrains the coming of the "man of sin" or "little horn" I believe was the Roman empire and the Caesars. It's obvious that Paul knew what was holding back the "man of sin". If the restrainer is the Holy Spirit as many futurists believe, while doesn't Paul just come right out and say so?

2 Thessalonians 2:5 - Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

2 Thessalonians 2:6 - And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 - For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

2 Thessalonians 2:8 - And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

In Great Prophecies of the Bible Woodrow states:

According to the teachings that were handed down by word of mouth to the Christians of the early centuries, it was the Roman Empire under the Caesars that was hindering the Man of Sin. Christians at that time believed that the fall of the Roman Empire would bring on the Man of Sin. When Christians were accused of holding this belief, they did not deny it. Their reply was that they believed the empire would fall, but that they did not desire it, for its fall would bring on the Antichrist who would inflict greater persecution against them than they had suffered under pagan Rome.

Woodrow goes on to show that most all of the early Church fathers believed that the fall of the Roman Empire would bring on the Antichrist. Among them were Lactantius, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose and Chrysostom.

If this interpretation of Paul's passage is correct, then the 'what' that hinders would be the Roman Empire and the 'he' that hinders would be the Caesars. In view of this, it is quite easy to see why Paul would refrain from mentioning by name what was holding back the Man of Sin. According to Acts 17:5-9 the Church in Thessalonica was already being persecuted. Verse seven says, ::

Acts 17:7 - Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.

If Paul were to write in a letter that eternal Rome was going to fall, it would bring more persecution on himself and the Thessalonian Church. That provides a logical explanation why he deliberately refrains from writing who it was that was holding back the Man of Sin, even though he had previously discussed this with the Church in Thessalonica.

From the time that Paul wrote his second letter to the Church at Thessalonica, the falling away or apostasy would certainly be sometime in the future. But are we now almost 2000 years later to say that it is still in the future? To do so would mean that the Church would have had to remain pure as it was when the faith was once for all entrusted to the saints. Even the most brief examination of Church history verifies the fact that such has not been the case. We need to look back in history when a falling away or apostasy from the faith once for all entrusted to the saints took place. We must also look for a person who exhalts himself in the NAOS of God, the Church, and proclaims himself to be not only "a" leader, but "the" leader.

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

The Promised Land

You stated:

"And Abraham believed (in the seed promise - there was also a geographical promise forever...and that doesn't mean until 70 AD).

Through you seed all nations will be blessed. Gen. 12:2-3
Promise is UNCONDITIONAL and is fulfilled in Christ.
2 Cor. 1:20

Romans 2:28-29; 4:1-17, 23-24;
Gal. 3:6-9,14,16-19,28-29; 4:21-31;
Ephesians 2:11-22, 3:6

"To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt, to the great river, the Euphrates"
Gen. 15:18

"So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. ... Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled."
Joshua 21:43-45

The promise WAS fulfilled

Deut. 1:8,21; 11:34-25
Joshua 21:43-45; 23:14
2 Samuel 8:3
1 Kings 4:21,24
2 Chronicles 9:26
Neh. 9:7-8
Jer. 11:5, 32:22-23

"Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the LORD your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed. But just as every good promise of the LORD your God has come true, so the LORD will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you from this good land he has given you. If you violate the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, the LORD's anger will burn against you, and you will quickly perish from the good land he has given you."
Johsua 23:14-16

Continuance in the land is CONDITIONED on OBEDIENCE

Lev. 26
Deut. 11:26-28,32; 28:1-68
Joshua 23:15-16
Jer. 32:23

Who are God's "chosen" people? National Israel or Believers in Christ?

Matt. 22:14
John 15:16
Acts 9:15
Romans 16:13
Col. 3:12
1 Thes. 1:4
1 Peter 2:4,9
Rev. 17:14

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

see above

I responded to this in prior reply.

Re: Church in Old Testament

I'm afraid that perhaps I did not make my question clear enough for you. When I asked "Do you believe that the Church is mentioned in the Old Testament?", I meant is the Church foretold or prophesied in the O.T.?

Many Futurists tend to believe the Church was not part of God's original plan. They believe Christ came to set up an earthly kingdom at His first coming, but He had to postpone it because the Jews rejected Him. So the Church was sort of a plan B or afterthought on God's part. However, not all of the Jews rejected Him. Only the ones who were not part of the Remnant. Those who rejected Him did so because they did not recognize that He was the promised Messiah. Based on their interpretation of the O.T., they expected the Messiah to set overthrow the Romans and restore Israel's earthly kingdom. But Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" .... "the kingdom of God is within you."

Consider Psalm 87:

Of the Sons of Korah. A psalm. A song. He has set his foundation on the holy mountain; the LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob.

Glorious things are said of you, O city of God: Selah

"I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me--Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush --and will say, 'This one was born in Zion.'"

Indeed, of Zion it will be said, "This one and that one were born in her, and the Most High himself will establish her."

The LORD will write in the register of the peoples: "This one was born in Zion." Selah

As they make music they will sing, "All my fountains are in you."

Is this not talking about the same Mount Zion of Hebrews 12:22?

N.T. writers refer to O.T. passages as being fulfilled with the Church.

O.T. reference - Joel 2:28-32
N.T. fulfillment - Acts 2:17-21, (cf. Acts 3:24), 1Pet. 1:9-12, 2Pet. 1:19

O.T. reference - Amos 9:11-12
N.T. fulfillment - Acts 15:13-18

O.T. reference - Isa. 49:6
N.T. fulfillment - Acts 13:46-47, 26:22,23,27; 28:23, 28-31; (cf. Psalm 62:7); Romans 1:1-2; 3:21

O.T. reference - Exodus 33:19
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 9:15

O.T. reference - Hosea 2:23
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 9:25 (cf. 1Pet. 2:10)

O.T. reference - Hosea 1:10
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 9:26

O.T. reference - Isaiah 28:16; Joel 2:32
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 10:11-12

O.T. reference - Deut. 32:21
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 10:19

O.T. reference - Isaiah 65:1
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 10:20

O.T. reference - Isaiah 52:7
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 10:15; (cf. Ephesians 6:15)

O.T. reference - 2 Samuel 22:50; Psalm 18:49
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 15:8-9

O.T. reference - Deut. 32:43
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 15:10

O.T. reference - Psalm 117:1
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 15:11

O.T. reference - Isaiah 11:10
N.T. fulfillment - Romans 15:12

Paul interprets the O.T. promises to Abraham as pointing to the Church in Gal. 3:6-9: "Consider Abraham: "He believed God and it was credited to as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Galatians 3:6-9

"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say 'and to seeds,' meaning many people, but 'and to your seed,' meaning one person, who is Christ." Galatians 3:16

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:28-29

"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two ONE and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself ONE new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this ONE body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit." ... "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of ONE body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:14-18 , 3:6

In my understanding, the N.T. is very clear. I see no distinction between Jew or Gentile. Do you think Paul was somehow mistaken or confused?

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

Re: Church in old testament

Sorry, Tad I thought your question was designed to get me to admit that the Church is used as a synonym for Israel. In the sense of "called out assembly" it is. The Church is a (musterion) mystery. When Paul uses the word mystery, he says that it is a revelation from God that in other generations was not made known. The Church was always in the plans and purpose of God, but he chose not to make this plan apparent in the Old Testament.Jews are part of the Church (as a remnant) in every generation, My man Marvin Rosenthal is of Jewish ancestry (but is a Baptist Minister). The Church is primarily focused on gentile recruitment. That's why Paul magnifies his position as the Apostle to the gentiles in Romans 11. That's why Paul always went to the Jew first (to try and pickup a remnant) and also to the Greek.
The blindness of Israel (in Romans 11) is another mystery; but the fact that Israel would be blind is not the mystery (Isiah was told that he would preach to a people that would be blind to his message and Isiah asked how long? The answer wasn't really given to Isiah. The answer was given to Paul, when the fulness of the gentiles be brought in! Peter said in Acts 15 (sorry I attributed it to James)that God would call out gentiles as a people for his name before he returned to build the tabernacle of David.
Where we disagree I think, is the ethnic/spiritual nature of Israel. We are (as the Church) spiritual heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant, in fact the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) was initiated at the Lord's final passover meal and we celebrate his death until he comes back again with communion.

I would certainly never attribute mistakes to God who knows all his ways from the beginning. If he intended all of the blessings to Abraham to be of a spiritual nature, and God cannot lie and he doesn't make mistakes and he is a covenant keeping God, then why make land promises to Israel (ethnic)? Israel has some land coming to her forever if all of God's acts are without repentance, especially his oaths.

Gotta go, my wife wants dinner.

Reply to Tad: Please check your math

1) If you read Sir Robert Anderson's "The Coming Prince", you will find that each "week" of Daniels prophesy is 7 years in duration.

2) Most expositors date the crucifixion of the Messiah between 29 AD and 33 AD. Anderson's crucifixion calculation fits within this time frame.

3) 33 years plus 1 year = 34 years, not 70 years.

4) 33 years plus 7 years ( a week of Daniel ) = 40 AD and I think the city and sanctuary were still standing then.

Re: Reply to Tad: Please check your math

These issues have been addressed here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

You have a bigger gap in your gap theory than I do

1) Each week in Daniel's prophesy is 7 years in duration.
2) Most expositors estimate date of crucifixion between 29 and 33 AD.
3)When I add 1 year to 33 years, I come up with 34 years but you come up with 70 years.
You have some 'splaining to do.

Re: You have a bigger gap in your gap theory than I do

These issues have been addressed here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/207622/must-watch-the-roots-of-chri...

Ron Paul 2012 - Restoring the Founding Fathers American Dream

I'm gonna check my change if you are the store clerk

1) The seventy weeks of Daniel comprise a time period of 490 years (490/70 = 1 week equivalent to 7 years).
See Sir Robert Anderson "The Coming Prince"
2) Most expositors give a date for the crucifixion between 29 an 33 AD.
3) By your sleight of hand you add one year to 33 years and come up with 70 years.
4) When it comes to the interpretation of prophesy you seem willing to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.