Видео

@@MrLgmurphysr Thanks for your comment! I’d be interested to hear your take on who you believe Israel and the Jews are. From a biblical perspective, Israel is a distinct entity-God’s chosen nation through whom He made covenants-and they are not to be confused with the Church, which is Christ’s body. Paul makes this distinction clear in Romans 11, where he speaks of the natural branches (Israel) and the wild branches (Gentiles) grafted into the olive tree. Israel’s ultimate restoration is tied to future events, but they remain separate from the Church in God’s plan. If you’re seeing something different, I’d be curious to hear where you’re coming from.

@@glennmiller9768 Thankyou for your feedback.

Thanks so much for your comment and welcome to the channel! The truth of the pre-tribulation rapture is based on several key passages in the Bible that, when pieced together, present a sequence of events where believers are taken up to meet the Lord before the tribulation period begins. Here’s a scriptural breakdown for why I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and where the Bible indicates that after meeting the Lord in the air, believers will be with Him in heaven: This is one of the clearest passages about the rapture: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." This describes believers being "caught up" (raptured) to meet Christ in the air. Importantly, the focus here is that believers are meeting Christ in the air, suggesting that this is a separate event from Christ’s second coming to earth at the end of the tribulation when He returns to establish His kingdom. Paul emphasizes that the church is not appointed to suffer God’s wrath: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." This verse indicates that believers are not destined to experience God’s wrath, which many interpret to mean that the Church will be spared from the tribulation, a time characterized by God’s wrath being poured out on the earth (Revelation 6-19). Jesus’ promise to the church in Philadelphia: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." This "hour of temptation" is understood to refer to the tribulation period. Jesus promises to "keep thee from" this time, which suggests removal from the earth prior to this worldwide trial. Jesus speaks about preparing a place for believers in His Father’s house: “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." Here, Jesus promises to "receive" believers to Himself and take them to the place He has prepared for them. This implies that after believers meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17), they will go to heaven, not remain on earth during the tribulation. The tribulation, also known as Daniel’s 70th week, is described as a period where God’s focus returns to Israel and His judgment is poured out on the world. The Church is not mentioned in passages about the tribulation (Revelation 6-19), leading many to believe that the Church is removed before this period begins, which aligns with the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture. After the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3, the Church is not mentioned again during the description of the tribulation in Revelation 6-19. This silence about the Church during the tribulation is taken by many to support the idea that the Church is not present on earth during this time, having already been taken to heaven. While no single verse says explicitly, "the rapture will happen before the tribulation and believers will go to heaven," the pre-tribulation view is based on a combination of passages that indicate believers will be caught up to meet Christ before the outpouring of God's wrath. The promise that believers are not appointed to wrath, along with Jesus’ promise to take believers to His Father’s house, builds a case for the rapture occurring before the tribulation begins.

@@honestfaithdiscussions Thanks for the response. I am working on a reply and this may take me awhile.

@@comptech5599 no problem. Take your time.

First and foremost I want to stress that no point of view concerning the end times should divide Christians. What will happen God determined before beginning creation. So we might just have to agree to disagree. Other doctrines such as salvation requiring works is divisive. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Catholics believe that works are required and that their priests have to hear confessions and give forgiveness. This is not what the scriptures teach. The truth of the pre-tribulation rapture is based on several key passages in the Bible that, when pieced together, present a sequence of events where believers are taken up to meet the Lord before the tribulation period begins. Here’s a scriptural breakdown for why I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and where the Bible indicates that after meeting the Lord in the air, believers will be with Him in heaven: This is one of the clearest passages about the rapture: [1Th4:17] "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." In 1Th4, as you mention, Paul is encouraging the believers. Also, some of the believers had ceased working because they believed Christ would return very very soon in their time. That is how certain they were. But, it is possible to be certain and be certainly wrong. Paul, 1Th4, was revealing to them what was, before the Christ, a mystery 1Co15:51-52. That salvation would also be presented to the gentiles. This describes believers being "caught up" (raptured) to meet Christ in the air. Importantly, the focus here is that believers are meeting Christ in the air, suggesting that this is a separate event from Christ’s second coming to earth at the end of the tribulation when He returns to establish His kingdom. In love, I disagree that meeting Christ in the air suggests this is an event separate from Christ's 2nd coming. In order to hold this belief we would have to read into the scriptures our own bias. It is important that we realize that scripture proves scripture and needs no sources outside itself; this is exegesis. Until the mid 1800's there was no rapture teaching or doctrine of the church. Credit for the rapture's origin generally goes to John Nelson Darby, a 19th-century English theologian that later moved to America. Darby's pre-tribulational view of the rapture was then picked up by a man named C.I. Scofield, who taught the view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed in England and America. And later the Dallas Theological Seminary school taught it with an attitude that if you want to say differently you'll not be given a church of which to be a pastor. Paul emphasizes that the church is not appointed to suffer God’s wrath: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." This verse indicates that believers are not destined to experience God’s wrath, which many interpret to mean that the Church will be spared from the tribulation, a time characterized by God’s wrath being poured out on the earth (Revelation 6-19). Very correct we, those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, will not experience the wrath of God. However, where the word tribulation is used in scripture it refers to what the Jews before Christ and believers experience while in the world and not what the damned will experience. It doesn't matter what "many interpret" the bible to mean. Unless they are keeping their own bias out of their understanding and letting the scriptures speak for themselves, exegesis. As for the Book of Revelation, be cautious in your understanding of what it says. Revelation is filled to it's brim with symbology. Look at the language used in describing the fall of the nation of Babylon, of Egypt, of the Medes and the Persians. It sounds very similar to Revelation but the moon did not turn to blood then so what reason is there, in scripture, to read Revelation literally?

Jesus’ promise to the church in Philadelphia: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." This "hour of temptation" is understood to refer to the tribulation period. Jesus promises to "keep thee from" this time, which suggests removal from the earth prior to this worldwide trial. The "hour of temptation" is not generally understood among the brethren as referring to the tribulation period. Again, this is people reading into the scripture what they want it to mean instead of letting themselves be instructed by the scriptures. It is clear that you have been taught this things by people who held these views and not the scriptures. Jesus speaks about preparing a place for believers in His Father’s house: “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." Correct. But, look at this again, "I will come again" this is the seconding coming. "that where I am" at the second coming Christ will be on Earth. Here I would like to point out that "in the days of Noah" the wicked were swept away while Noah and his family remained on the earth. Here, Jesus promises to "receive" believers to Himself and take them to the place He has prepared for them. This implies that after believers meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17), they will go to heaven, not remain on earth during the tribulation. The scripture does not imply that believers will go to heaven. You, and others, have inferred this meaning into the scriptures and did not receive it from scripture. What you are referring to as the rapture is the "Parousia". Roman culture, which ruled from 27bc to 476ad, had a cultural habit of the returning army sending a soldier ahead to give notice to the rest of Rome, the citizens, the the army would be marching into the city of Rome on a specific day. On that day the Roman citizens would hang up scented garlands not only as a decoration but also to drown out the stench of the prisoners being brought back from a war. The citizens would go out to meet the army and parade them back into the capitol. This, I think, is a better understanding of the word rapture. Yes, we will be caught up with Christ in the air and then we will accompany Him back to earth. The tribulation, also known as Daniel’s 70th week, is described as a period where God’s focus returns to Israel and His judgment is poured out on the world. The Church is not mentioned in passages about the tribulation (Revelation 6-19), leading many to believe that the Church is removed before this period begins, which aligns with the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture. The 70th week comes after the 69 which begin when the Babylonian king, where the captured Jews have been taken to, will insist on the rebuilding of the temple, this is the second temple. What reason is given in scripture to believe that there is a gap of over 2000 years between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week? I haven't found any as of yet and no one I've tried to engage has been able to elaborate on this. After the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3, the Church is not mentioned again during the description of the tribulation in Revelation 6-19. This silence about the Church during the tribulation is taken by many to support the idea that the Church is not present on earth during this time, having already been taken to heaven. I am aware of this stance regarding the church. But, by those that believe in a pre-wrath rapture they also have to insist that this silence be interpreted in this way. Most notably John MacArthur. One whom John MacArthur mentored, Voddie Baucham, speaks very highly of him but does not believe in a pre-wrath rapture. There is nothing in scripture that says silence about a particular thing in scripture means approval or disapproval. In addition to these two pastors I listen to several others including YT:apologiastudios Web:apologiastudios.com. Apologia Church, in Arizona, believes in a post-tribulation Parousia, as do I. While no single verse says explicitly, "the rapture will happen before the tribulation and believers will go to heaven," the pre-tribulation view is based on a combination of passages that indicate believers will be caught up to meet Christ before the outpouring of God's wrath. The promise that believers are not appointed to wrath, along with Jesus’ promise to take believers to His Father’s house, builds a case for the rapture occurring before the tribulation begins. Jesus never promised that believers would be taken to heaven. This is only something that is read into scripture and does not come from scriptures. Jesus did promise that we will be where He is. The earth belongs to God and the earth is where the New Jerusalem of God will be. The garden of Eden was made perfect, and I believe, will be on the earth again as an important part of God's Kingdom. The Kingdom of heaven is likened to mustard seed, becoming the largest of trees such that all the birds of the air (believers) will lodge in its branches(the kingdom of God). Or leaven that leavens the whole lump. Just as Jesus warned of the leaven(hypocrisy) of the pharisees (sons of Satan). But there is also the leaven of the Gospel of God, which leavens(makes righteous) the whole lump(the church). This is to say that the kingdom of God started out small with just 12 Apostles (not counting Judas Iscariot who was replaced) and now the Gospel is preached all around the world. Rev 22:10 John is told “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." John was not writing to us here in the year 21st century. John was writing to his brethren before 70ad when the second temple was destroyed. During the Olivet Discourse (Mat24) Jesus says to some of the apostles "Mat 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. " a word of particular note is the 'this', "this generation". Jesus was not referring to a later generation. He was referring to the generation that was, then, current.

That’s bazaar.. it’s obviously very legalistic so it doesn’t surprise me.

Thank you for sharing! I can see where you're coming from, but I'd like to offer some clarification regarding Paul (Sha’ul) and his relationship with the law. While Paul did participate in certain Jewish customs, such as keeping the fast (Acts 27:9), he did so in order to reach Jews (1 Corinthians 9:20), not because he believed that Torah observance was necessary for salvation. Romans 3:31 teaches that faith establishes the law by fulfilling its righteous requirements through Christ (Romans 8:3-4), but it doesn't mean that believers today are bound to follow the Mosaic Law - in fact its quite the opposite. The New Covenant was promised specifically to Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and it will be fulfilled completely at a future time when Israel is restored and the kingdom that was promised is established. Today, we are living in the dispensation of grace as revealed to Paul (Ephesians 3:2-6), which is distinct from the New Covenant. Sure, believers today are grafted in with Israel and we are partakers of the new covenant and its blessings but we are not a covenant people. Believers today are justified by faith in Christ’s finished work, apart from the works of the law (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:28). As for the twelve gates in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:12), they represent God's promises to the tribes of Israel, but we must remember that in the body of Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28). Through Christ’s finished work, both groups are reconciled to God by grace through faith. The call to “come out of her, My people” (Revelation 18:4) is a reference to spiritual Babylon and the rejection of worldliness and sin, rather than Torah observance. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

@@honestfaithdiscussions I don’t think you appreciate what Messiah did at all, because faith in the Savior would require you to believe (= do) everything He said. Sha’ul is keeping the Fast (not certain Jewish customs, all Torah is for all mankind) during a storm that was close to sinking the ship. Let that sink in. He did not want to sin. No Christian would do this. Kepha’s (Peter) aim was to make the gentiles like a Yehudi Gal 2:14. Not make Yehudi like gentiles. Who has the oracles of Yahweh? The Yehudim do. Abraham believed Yahweh and then kept the commandments Gen 26:5 because he loved Him. Christians don’t want anything to do with His Holy days which point to Yahshua and bring us closer to Him. They choose pagan days and “clean” them with pagan words and prayers. We are most definitely required to be in a covenant relationship as referred to in Hebrews 10:28. Why wouldn’t you want compassion? The new covenant is that it’s written on our hearts but is in fact the same Torah. BTW Torah is forever. The Torah is eternal: Psalm 119: 142; Isaiah 24: 5; Ezekiel 37: 26; ibid 16: 60; Jeremiah 32: 40; Isaiah 61: 8; ibid 55:3; 2 Shemu'el 23: 5; Jeremiah 50: 5; 1 Chronicles 16: 17; Hebrews 13: 20; 1 Peter 1: 24-25 Matt 5:18 Heaven and earth haven’t even passed away yet and you disregard Torah. Are you crazy? It was so easy to accept once presented to me. I’ve even heard you people say “to practice Torah condemns us under works of the law”, which would condemn Sha’ul. I wouldn’t wanna be the person to stand up against Sha’ul on Judgement Day. You bring up Roman’s 8:3-4 doesn’t mean the entire Torah is done away with as I have shown to through the example of the ship and Fast OBVIOUSLY! it’s talking about a single law of animal sacrifices for atonement being a tutor to understand Yahshua’s sacrifice. Is that too hard? “For as many as sinned without Torah (Christians) shall also perish without Torah, and as many as sinned in the Torah shall be judged (there is good and bad judgement) by the Torah.” ‭‭Romiyim (Romans)‬ ‭2‬:‭12‬ ‭TS2009‬‬ Galatians 5:14 explains how to love your neighbor and that is through Torah! No Torah no love nor compassion because everything you ever did was in vain. How can you be grafted into Israel when Israel never knew you. An assembly of Yahweh and a church are 2 different peoples, who worship on 2 different days. Messiah is still working. Where would you get He is done? The prophesies leading up to His ascension are fulfilled and there are more to come. Luke 24:44 ”“For I am יהוה, I shall not change, and you, O sons of Ya‛aqoḇ, shall not come to an end.“ ‭‭Mal’aḵi (Malachi)‬ ‭3‬:‭6‬ ‭TS2009 “In the days of those kings the Elohim of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people (only Yisrael whom we may be grafted into. Yeshayahu 54:10 My loving commitment is not removed from you……); it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.” ‭‭Daniel‬ ‭2:44‬ ‭‬‬‬‬‭‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Then it’d be neither Jew nor gentile. It will all be Yisraelite. He’s not taking down names of the tribes of Israel off the gates. Figure this out! Yeshayah (Isaiah)‬ ‭2‬:‭3‬ ‭TS2009‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ Torah will come again or else. You can do it through Messiah who strengthens you. He is our strength. I’d like to hear from you again but with a different attitude about Torah.

I want to be clear that, like Paul, I have great respect for the Torah. Paul himself says in Romans 7:12 that "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." The Torah is part of God's perfect revelation, and it serves an invaluable purpose in showing us God’s righteousness and the standard of holiness. But we must recognize the difference between upholding the law's purpose and attempting to live under its requirements today. Paul teaches that Christ didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. This fulfillment is crucial. In Romans 10:4, Paul tells us that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth." The law pointed to Christ, and He fulfilled its demands through His perfect life, sacrificial death, and resurrection. Where I cannot keep the law perfectly (as no human can), Christ kept it for me. My inability to keep the law is why I, and all believers, need the grace provided through Christ's fulfillment of it. You mentioned the New Covenant and its everlasting nature. I agree with you that the New Covenant, as outlined in Jeremiah 31:31-34, is a covenant God made specifically with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is important to distinguish that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is not a covenant people in the same way Israel is. The New Covenant promises are for Israel, and they will be fully realized in the future when God completes His plan for Israel. Romans 11:25-27 indicates that Israel has been temporarily set aside until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." However, while the New Covenant is for Israel, believers in Christ today are partakers of its spiritual blessings. This is not the same as being under a covenant ourselves, but through faith in Christ, we benefit from the salvation, forgiveness, and new life that the New Covenant promises. As believers today, we are not under the Mosaic law, but we are under grace. This is what Paul teaches repeatedly. In Galatians 3:24-25, Paul explains that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." The law served its purpose to reveal sin and lead us to Christ, but now that Christ has come and we are justified by faith, we no longer live under the law’s requirements. Do we respect it? Absolutely! Can we keep it? Absolutely not! While the Torah remains holy and instructive, its role in our lives has changed. We are now led by the Spirit, as Paul writes in Romans 8:2-4: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." I wholeheartedly agree that love is the fulfillment of the law. However, this love comes as a result of the indwelling Holy Spirit, not from legalistic adherence to the Torah. Paul emphasizes in Romans 13:8-10 that love is the fulfillment of the law, but this love flows from the new life we have in Christ, not from an external observance of the law’s commands. The overarching theme of Paul’s gospel, which was given to him by direct revelation from Christ (Galatians 1:11-12), is that salvation is by grace through faith, apart from the works of the law (Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul repeatedly warns against mixing law and grace, as this undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Galatians 2:21 is clear: "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." If we were still required to keep the Torah for righteousness, it would imply that Christ’s work on the cross was incomplete. But we know from scripture that His work was perfect and finished. Hebrews 10:12-14 tells us that "this man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God... For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." I respect your commitment to Torah observance, and I understand the significance it holds within your tradition. However, as a believer in Christ, I rest in the finished work of the cross. The law has served its purpose in pointing us to Christ, and now, as believers, we walk by the Spirit, not by the letter of the law. Christ has fulfilled the law, and in Him, we have everything we need for life and godliness. I appreciate your thoughts and the conversation we’re having. My hope is that we can continue to seek the truth, guided by the full counsel of scripture, rightly divided.

You don’t respect the Torah nor the High Days of Yom Kippur or Yom Teruah. You are a false teacher unfortunately. I already told you Roman’s 10:4 is related to the sacrifice for redemption law, because that had a time limit till Messiah came in the flesh. Nobody said you had to keep Torah perfectly. That is the purpose of Yom Teruah after being baptized in Yahshua name (jc is man made with letter j being only 500 years old), but these things you don’t care for because Torah has been set aside. I also mentioned the covenant is for Israel and NO OTHER PEOPLE with the verse to back it up! Do not go your own way. Savior only came for the LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL, which were the 10 tribes in diaspora. You can’t keep it Torah because you won’t try and think Yahweh won’t extend mercy to you for trying and growing in wisdom. That’s like cursing Yahweh our FATHER, which is exactly what you do when you call Him lord which has the same meaning as ba’al, “owner”. You are free from the law of sin and death for breaking Torah so that you may come back to Torah covenant. It’s not “forgive me for breaking Torah so I can keep breaking Torah”. What sense does that make? Remember Sha’ul kept the FAST. Christians run to Galatians every single time 😂. The problem in Galatians was judaizers said “to be saved you must be circumcised”. But that is a byproduct of love to Yahweh and is only commanded for 8 day old baby boys. Timothy did and Titus didn’t. Torah explains very well what commandments are for whom. The foundation is the writings of Moshe and Yahshua is there in the Torah. You obviously don’t rest accordingly as Hebrews 4 says is the 7th day and have no rest. That’s for the 7th day of heaven and we rest on the 7th weekly day in anticipation. I just plainly speak so don’t be offended. The letter of the law is dogma. The letter of the LAW is COVENANT BINDING. You are literally picking and choosing which scripture you prefer. I showed you Hebrews 10:28, Romans 3:31, Matthew 4:4 which is a big one and spoken by Yahshua Himself and shows you don’t believe in Him unfortunately. Yahshua Himself said worship and serve Father alone but you do Sunday worship thinking He was risen on the 1st day. You worship the jc idol sung*d son. Come out of her my people.

Firstly, let’s address a few misunderstandings I respect the Torah deeply, as did Paul. But Paul makes it abundantly clear that Christ fulfilled the law. Romans 10:4 says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.” This does not mean the law is abolished but that it is fulfilled in Christ. The Torah is a beautiful expression of God's will, but in the current dispensation of grace, the law serves as a tutor to lead us to Christ (Galatians 3:24), not as a system of salvation. You mentioned Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur-the feast days are part of Israel's covenant, but Paul explicitly tells us not to let anyone judge us in respect to holy days, new moons, or Sabbaths because these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17). Christ is the fulfillment of these shadows, and in Him, we rest from our works, not in outward observance of specific days. Yes, Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24), but Paul makes it clear that salvation was opened to the Gentiles after Israel’s national rejection of Christ. This was the “mystery” revealed to Paul (Ephesians 3:2-6), that the Gentiles are now fellow heirs and partakers of the covenants and blessing and part of the same ‘body’. This does not abolish Israel's promises or covenant; we do not replace Israel, it expands the scope of God's grace. You’re right that the new covenant is for Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34), but during this present dispensation of grace, both Jew and Gentile who believe are baptised by the Spirit into the body of Christ. We are not a covenant people, but we are partakers of the blessings through faith (Romans 11). The church is not under the Mosaic law; Paul clearly states that we are under grace (Romans 6:14). As for Romans 10:4, it doesn’t refer just to animal sacrifices but to the entire law system, showing that righteousness can no longer be attained through the law but only through Christ. This is why Paul contrasts law and grace throughout his letters. The writer of Hebrews is speaking to a Jewish audience, warning them of the consequences of rejecting Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. It is crucial to understand that the letter to the Hebrews is not directed to the Gentiles or the body of Christ. The audience of Hebrews is deeply Jewish, and its context is about the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant through Christ’s final sacrifice. The phrase "without mercy" applies to those who trample underfoot the sacrifice of Christ, not to those who fail to keep the Torah perfectly. The day of worship is not mandated in the dispensation of grace. Paul tells us, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5-6). Early Christians gathered on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), not because the law was abolished, but because Christ’s resurrection marked the beginning of new life. We worship the Lord every day on any day. Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). However, once fulfilled, the law's purpose changes-it is no longer a system for achieving righteousness. I understand your passion for Torah, and I share a deep respect for its place in God's plan. But under grace, we are not called to return to the law for righteousness. Paul, who kept aspects of Jewish custom as a Jew (not for salvation but for cultural reasons), also made it clear that returning to the law as a requirement for righteousness nullifies the grace of God (Galatians 5:4). The Torah is eternal, yes-but its role has shifted. It points us to Christ, in whom we find full redemption, rest, and righteousness.

@@traingear9578 I noticed something that I think is worth considering. While you’re aware my views are rooted in scripture, which provides an authoritative and historic grounding for my beliefs, your perspective, while thought-provoking, doesn't seem to cite a great deal of specific sources or scriptural backing. There have been a couple of references to verses from the Torah but not what I might expect if I was being shown my error. I'd be curious to know where these ideas come from, and how you know them to be true. In my faith, scripture is the ultimate authority, and I can rely on the Word to guide me. Without that clear reference point, how can we be sure of what we're believing or teaching? You speak of perfection and redemption, but where is this taught, and how does one know when they’ve achieved it? In my understanding, perfection in this life is only possible through Christ, and even then, we recognize that true perfection won’t be realized until we’re with Him in eternity. It sounds to me like your ideas are beautiful but perhaps lack the kind of firm foundation that I find in scripture, which gives me confidence in what I believe. I'd be interested in hearing where your thoughts come from and how they can be verified as truth.

​@@honestfaithdiscussions Keep in mind in Judaism the whole Tanach is authoritative of course BUT the New Testament is not at all as it's propaganda.. (even though I think perhaps it may contain maybe 10% truth, but even the old testament quotes it uses are twisted corrupted and sometimes blatant lies/distortion). So yes your quoting a lot of NT. In fact the whole Christian religion is founded upon the NT, and thus is founded on what Jews considered to be greco-roman propaganda.. so while you think you are quoting authority, you are in fact quoting from heresy. . Its no difference from a Mormon, who quotes the book of mormon because its been super glued to the back of his bible, so he thinks its God's word and has authority. but its not.. same with the NT. The Roman Catholics super glued the letters of Paul and the NT to the back of the Hebrew scriptures, and tried to give it credibility by doing so. but its a scam. Just like the book of Mormon. No different then me writing an article of my own invention, super gluing it to the back of Time magazine, and then giving it to you and telling you my article has valid authority in journalism because its on the back of Time magazine .. i give it to the Romans, they are a crafty bunch no doubt,, and their NT is a perfect example of their craftiness. heck they were able to unite the Roman empire under one religion under the beast. and they coming up with both Christianity, and with the New Testament propaganda, (and murdering off the Jews), were all steps to make that happen, and thus throw humanity into worshipping their god/man image, the Jesus christ idol of Rome, and through that image and power of the sword conquer the whole western world.. the Roman catholic church is what gave you your NT and your idea that what your reading is actually authoritative (the beast seemingly gave that authority) .. NOW on the other hand, God himself spoke from heaven to over 3 million people in plain sight, and gave them all the Torah.. thats thus the only true authority on earth from heaven. Nobody but a few disciples were in the upper room with Jesus when he (or YHWH) supposedly made a covenant with Israel. it was done in private, and thus has no authority but is likely propaganda .. but at Sinai, there were 3 million people as eye witnesses to it.. the Torah is the supreme authority as all of Israel and the whole nation witness it. . On the other hand, the NT is primarily the writings of a small cult.. not like the Torah which came out of an entire Nation, people, and land directly from God speaking from heaven. note: also in Judaism, the Oral Torah is also authoritative. Moses received the Oral Torah, and wrote down the written Torah.. then from there we have the Sefers (the holy writings).. there are dozens of Sefers in judaism that are instuctions and teachings on the Torah .. I see no point in me quoting from them to a Christian though. . All my ideas are deriving from my studies of Tanach, Oral Torah, and the Sefers .. but why should I quote from them to a Christian? Judaism and Torah are 'done away with' ,, thus our holy writings are not accepted by you. just as we do not accept your NT .. this we agree on.. so I see no point in either side quoting from their holy works to make a point.. its much more fluent and easier to speak person to person and thought for thought, from our own minds (which is speaking from the soul and heart), rather then 'pretending' to quote from some supposed "authority" when we both reject each others authority anyhow. . . having said that ,, IF a Christian wants to dive into the exegesis of individual 'Old Testament' passages, and interpret those texts through 'sola scriptura', meaning with other old testament scriptures, then surely I will engage in quoting from my authority in such a case .. but as it stands, you quoting from the NT has no authority to me, and me quoting from the Talmud has no authority to you,, so just speaking ones personal thoughts is sufficient unless engaging in exegesis of hebrew sciptures only

I understand that within Judaism, the New Testament holds no authority, much like how Christians don’t accept the Talmud. I can respect that our foundational texts differ in terms of religious authority. However, for me, my belief is based on faith in the resurrection of Christ and the teachings of Paul, which, though rooted in a different context, offer continuity and fulfillment of the promises made in the Torah. While the Torah was given to Israel at Sinai, Christians believe that the New Covenant, as foretold in Jeremiah 31:31-34, is fulfilled in Christ, will be given to Israel as promised - and we gentiles will be partakers. This belief doesn't diminish the Torah but views it through the lens of fulfilled prophecy. We may disagree on textual authority, but I believe that the Tanakh and New Testament together provide a unified story of God’s plan of redemption, culminating in Christ. I appreciate your thoughts and I’m always open to thoughtful discussion grounded in mutual respect and understanding.

​@@honestfaithdiscussions Yep we just see things from totally different perspectives.. You see the Hebrew scriptures with a NT attached to it as a uniform whole completed story.. I see the Hebrew scriptures as being perfect and consistent within itself, but then when you introduce the New Testament it now makes the bible a contradictory, deceptive, distorted, and corrupted, document.. the NT does not add clarity, imo, it adds chaos and confusion. Which is why you have so many scholars who are critics of the NT and see it as a greco-roman document that is totally inconsistent with the Hebrew scriptures, to the extreme of it being an invention of the Roman empire itself. The NT, even as a stand alone document, is full of contradictions and errors, and gospel stories, like synoptic verse gospel of John, presenting two opposing gospels and accounts.. then there is the NT use of the Hebrew scriptures, things completely misquoted and twisted, and changed to be outright lies they are so twisted (perhaps Paul knowing his pagan audience did not have the hebrew scriptures and he could get by with twisting the scriptures so much) I could go on and on.. but my point is, with the NT attached to the bible, it completely distorts the message of the Bible, and is the opposite of one perfected story.. so we just see this from two totally different perspectives. . of course decades ago when I was in seminary, I was taught the doctrines of the authority of the NT scriptures, the infallible word of God and its supposed self consistency etc.. I followed my professors and believed what I was told . but after being a Christian for 40 years, and studying things as an independent researcher, and reading other scholars outside of fundamentalist christian scholars, my mind was more open to perceive truth from outside of the box of constriction. . having said that, I still enjoy reading the NT (especially revelation) and have done so through 100s of times,, especially in light of Kabbalah. Only in the Kabbalist mindset does the NT have a beautiful message for me behind the outward words, which have been highly corrupted by the Church of Rome.. with spiritual eyes of Kabbalah, there is a deep truth in the NT .. but then again, there is a deep truth to all of creation and all things from a Kabbalist's mind, which is the shared mind of God,, as Jesus' words "me and my father are ONE" , only makes sense in its fullest meaning, imo, to a true Kabbalist. but that's a whole different can of worms :)

Thanks again for your response. I might just say in relation to your experience in seminary that in my personal experience there isn’t a Christian ‘professor’ or ‘pastor’ from any church or seminary that can face the heat of the truth of the scripture rightly divided. They start running every time. It destroys all of the errors that they teach and none of them that I’ve ever spoken to have ever welcomed me back. Anyhoooo.. This claim that Paul's writings are a Greco-Roman creation is an interesting one when you take into consideration the overwhelming majority of traditional, mainstream Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism and nearly every Protestant cult, do not fully follow or prioritize Paul’s teachings at all. In fact, the Christian world emphasises the gospels over Paul any day of the week and mix law and grace, which Paul specifically warned against and you and I both agree is outrageous! For example: The Roman Catholic Church emphasises sacraments, rituals, and works-none of which align with Paul's message of salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). & Nearly every Protestant denomination also teaches a hybrid of grace and works, particularly with doctrines like baptismal regeneration and maintaining works for salvation. Some of them even tell the church members they need to pay a 10% temple tax from their income. Totally opposite of what Paul taught. My point is, if Paul were a creation of the Greco-Roman world, it’s strange that his writings largely conflict with the practices of every religious institution on earth. Paul’s message doesn’t sound like they could be Greco-Roman in origin because it was radically different from both Roman and Jewish expectations. His teachings frequently led to tension with the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who insisted on continuing the Mosaic law (Acts 15). If Paul’s gospel was merely Greco-Roman propaganda, why would he have faced so much opposition from his Jewish-Christian counterparts, and why would he face death at the hands of both Jews and Romans? This doesn’t align with the idea that his teachings were a "convenient" Roman invention. Historically, Paul’s letters were circulating well before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Well before Constantine. His epistles were written between AD 50-60, while the Roman Catholic Church, as an institutional power, didn't emerge until centuries later. Furthermore, Paul was martyred in Rome under Emperor Nero around AD 67. The timeline itself discredits the idea that Paul’s writings were created by a post-Constantinian Roman Empire, which officially adopted Christianity in the 4th century AD. The early church was heavily persecuted by Rome for centuries. Roman emperors saw the Christian movement as a threat because it didn't align with Roman polytheism or emperor worship. If the NT was a Roman invention, why did the early Christian church suffer severe persecution from the very people who supposedly created it? Paul’s epistles consistently point to Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures, and he makes it clear that salvation comes from faith in Christ, not adherence to Roman or Greco-Roman ideology. Take, for instance: * Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." This passage shows that Paul preached a gospel that was inclusive of Jews and Gentiles, and not based on any cultural or political allegiance to Rome. The first believers were Jewish, and the apostles, including Paul, rooted their theology in the Hebrew scriptures. The tension that Paul encountered was due to his assertion that Gentiles could be part of the faith without becoming Jewish proselytes, but that doesn’t mean his teachings were Greco-Roman in nature. His epistles are filled with references to the Hebrew Bible, and they clearly demonstrate continuity with the Old Testament. If anything, Paul’s teaching expanded the understanding of how the Abrahamic promise applies to both Jews and Gentiles through faith. Most scholars, including many Jewish historians, agree that Paul’s letters are authentic first-century documents. Claims that they are later fabrications have been thoroughly discredited. His letters contain theological nuances that show a deep understanding of both Jewish law and Greco-Roman culture, but they were aimed at leading people away from idol worship, which was central to Greco-Roman religion.

@@traingear9578 sounds like you must be an Israelite? Of the seed of Jacob? One of the chosen ones?

​@@honestfaithdiscussions I'm Jewish by faith.. but I'm also a student of the New Testament and teachings of the historical Yeshua, who I believe was a Kabbalist, a great Rabbi, a spiritual minded Pharisee of the school of Hillel. . he was an 'anointed' teacher, but he himself was NOT "The Messiah" , as his teachings--which are the teachings of Torah and Kabbalah, would take 2000+ years to develop into a corporate state of humanity to be able to receive the messiah and merit the messianic age. . we are at that time now when a return to Torah, and its true spiritual meanings, will help bring about righteousness, spiritual transformation, and the coming messianic age. . Israel (the remnant) corporately is the 'anointed' one that God uses to help bring mankind to the knowledge of Torah, and thus salvation (this same knowledge is what the historical Yeshua taught) .. so i see hebrew roots as having some good things, but they need to flee from the greco-roman pagan influences of Rome, and depart from 'god-man' worship.

Your reply emphasizes returning to Torah, but you reject the idea of Jesus being God incarnate, which you claim is idolatry. This is a core point where your understanding differs from the New Testament teaching. According to the New Testament, Jesus (Yeshua) is not just a teacher of Torah or a prophet-He is presented as the Messiah and God incarnate. The concept of the Messiah being more than just a human teacher is found throughout the New Testament and supported by key Old Testament prophecies, such as: Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given... and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." This prophecy refers to a divine figure, the Messiah, who is both a child and "Mighty God." John 1:1, 14: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus is the Word of God, God in the flesh, fulfilling both Torah and prophecy. While you refer to Torah as a guide, Paul’s letters, especially to the Romans and Galatians, clarify that righteousness through Torah cannot be achieved because no one can perfectly keep the law (Romans 3:20). Instead, salvation comes through faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross, fulfilling the Torah and freeing believers from its bondage (Galatians 3:10-13). You also describe Yeshua as a Kabbalist and a Pharisee of the school of Hillel, focusing on His role as a Torah teacher. While it’s true that Jesus engaged with the Pharisees and taught in a context familiar to Jewish customs, His teachings go beyond Pharisaic interpretation. He often rebuked the Pharisees (Luke 11:39-42) for focusing on external observances rather than inner transformation. John 8:58: Jesus claims divinity when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am." This statement refers back to the name God gave to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "I AM," which directly links Jesus to the divine. Kabbalah and mystical traditions may offer interesting insights into Jewish spirituality, but Jesus’ message is not rooted in Kabbalistic mysticism but in fulfilling the law and prophets (Matthew 5:17) and establishing the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Your view that Israel corporately represents the "anointed" one who brings the world to Torah reflects a traditional Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 and similar passages. However, Isaiah 53, often referred to as the "Suffering Servant" prophecy, refers to the Messiah Jesus, who bears the sins of humanity. Jesus is identified as this suffering servant who provides atonement for sin, not Israel as a nation. Isaiah 53:5-6: "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities... All we like sheep have gone astray... and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Your emphasis on Israel’s role in the Messianic age aligns with traditional Jewish expectations, but the New Testament teaches that Christ’s work on the cross has already accomplished this and that both Jews and Gentiles are now part of the "one new man" in Christ (Ephesians 2:14-16). Your claim that belief in Jesus as God stems from "Greco-Roman pagan influences" is a common argument in certain streams of Jewish or anti-Trinitarian thought, but it doesn’t hold up historically. The early church’s belief in the divinity of Jesus was rooted in Old Testament prophecy and firsthand witness of His resurrection and works, not external pagan philosophy. Philippians 2:6-7 clearly speaks of Jesus' divine nature: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant." The belief in Jesus' divinity was central to the early church long before the Council of Nicaea or any so-called Greco-Roman influence. Early Christian writings, such as the epistles of Paul, make this clear. Your interest in Jesus as a teacher is commendable, but His identity as God incarnate and the Messiah is foundational to the gospel of grace. Salvation does not come through Torah observance or Kabbalistic wisdom but through faith in Christ’s completed work on the cross. Both Jew and Gentile are called to faith in Him, not to a return to the law (Romans 10:4).

​@@honestfaithdiscussions wow that was a very well put together response and very detailed.. I owe you a more commendable response then I'm able to give at the moment. But let me just say this: I understand perfectly ALL of your points, in detail.. how? Because I'm a former Christian, seminary trained in the conservative Reformed and orthodox traditions. Well studied in a vast array of Christian theology, soteriology, Christology, the creeds of Christendom, church fathers post and pre-nicaea, historicity, etc. etc.. I studied the NT extensively for 2 decades.. what led me to convert to Judaism is my research on the historical Jesus and the HUGE discrepancy between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus, as well as Jesus' true followers, James, John and the Ebionites.. I found in my studies Paul to be an imposter to the 'Jesus movement' and an enemy to James and John. In conclusion, Jesus was part of the religion that became Rabbinical Judaism (a Judaism that arouse under the school of Hillel with the school of Shemai and the Saducee's being destroyed in the fiery wrath of 70ad). Paul on the other hand was a Charlatan, an imposter, and he started his own movement, his own 'christ' character, in the Hellenized world with the greeks and romans, and all his mystery religion and gnostic teachings is what founded Christianity (his christ is not the historical Jesus but a figment of his imagination and his life as a mystery religionist) .. the historical Jesus is a first Rabbi (of his kind) in the long line of Rabbinical Judaism, and Paul is the father of greco-roman christianity .. I chose to go with the historical Jesus that practiced Judaism, and rejected the teachings of the false apostle and the heretic we call Paul. Paul's Jesus is the myth, the greco-roman god man that fits in with the mystery religions.. the historical Jesus is the one who taught in line with the Hebrew scriptures .. which we could dive into, but I'm stating my position first so your aware of why I believe what i do.

@@traingear9578 Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. I appreciate that you've taken the time to outline your position so clearly, and I commend your extensive studies in Christian theology. You've clearly done a lot of deep work on these issues, and it's great to engage with someone who is both well-read and sincere in their search for truth. That said, I do think it's important to address the central claims you've made about Paul, Jesus, and the early church. You mention that Paul’s teachings seem to contradict those of Jesus, James, and John. However, a close examination of scripture shows that Paul’s apostleship and gospel were affirmed by the early church. Paul’s Apostleship Was Recognized by James, Peter, and John: In Galatians 2:9, Paul explicitly states that James, Peter, and John extended the right hand of fellowship to him, recognizing his ministry to the Gentiles. This shows there was no opposition between Paul and the pillars of the Jerusalem church. They were aligned in spreading the gospel, each focusing on different groups-Paul to the Gentiles, and James and Peter to the Jews. Peter’s Affirmation of Paul’s Writings: In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter refers to Paul’s writings as Scripture, acknowledging their authority and the wisdom given to Paul by God. This is a significant endorsement of Paul’s teachings by one of Jesus’ closest disciples. It's a common argument that Paul’s message of salvation by grace through faith is different from Jesus' teachings, but in reality, there is no contradiction: Jesus Taught Grace: Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees and His teaching in the Gospels demonstrate a clear break from the legalistic interpretation of the Mosaic Law. For example, in John 6:29, Jesus emphasizes that the "work of God" is to believe in Him, not to follow a strict legal code. Similarly, in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus invites all to come to Him for rest, offering an invitation of grace rather than legalism. Paul’s Expansion of Jesus’ Teachings: Paul was given the revelation of the mystery concerning the church, the body of Christ, which was previously hidden (Ephesians 3:2-6). His mission to the Gentiles, which involved explaining how grace applies in the context of faith apart from the works of the law, didn’t contradict Jesus’ teachings but fulfilled the broader scope of God’s redemptive plan. You mentioned the Ebionites, an early Jewish-Christian group that rejected Paul’s teachings and adhered strictly to the Mosaic Law. However, it's worth noting that the Ebionites were a minority, and their beliefs were ultimately deemed heretical by the broader Christian community because they denied key doctrines such as the divinity of Christ and justification by faith. The early church, as a whole, recognized Paul’s writings as authoritative and included them in the canon of scripture. The apostles didn’t see Paul as an outsider or a rogue teacher; rather, they accepted his revelation as part of God's unfolding plan. I understand your inclination towards Jesus’ connection to Rabbinical Judaism, as He was, of course, born into a Jewish context. However, it’s critical to remember that Jesus critiqued many of the legalistic traditions that would form the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism (see Matthew 15:3-9). While Jesus fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17), He also established a new covenant through His death and resurrection, something that Paul was tasked with explaining in detail, particularly to Gentile believers. Paul’s emphasis on grace, faith, and freedom from the law didn’t detract from Jesus' teachings but expounded on them in light of the new covenant. This is why Paul states in Galatians 5:4 that those who seek to be justified by the law have "fallen from grace." The blending of law and grace, which often leads people back into legalism, misses the beauty of the gospel that Paul preached. Christ fulfilled the law, and salvation is now offered freely through grace (Romans 10:4). Paul’s message aligns with what Jesus established: that righteousness comes through faith, not through works of the law (Galatians 2:16). I'd be more than happy to discuss any of these points further with you and explore the implications of Paul’s teachings in more depth.

@@BIG_r. yes - Paul did preach the kingdom of God. The ‘kingdom of God’ is not referring to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ when Paul uses that phrase - he preached the gospel of the grace of God. Similarly to the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ the ‘gospel of the grace of God’ falls under the banner of the ‘kingdom of God’. Hence the importance of understanding where we are in the dispensations. All things will be united in the end. Perfectly. Keep working ! You’re doing very well!

@@honestfaithdiscussions Jesus sent the 11 apostles to preach the gospel to all the gentile Nations... Mark 16:14-16 kjv Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Thank you for your response and for referencing Mark 16:14-16. It's important to understand the distinction between the different gospels in Scripture, especially when we interpret Jesus' commands and Paul's teachings. While I see why you might think the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace are the same, I’d argue that they are actually different messages for different times: The gospel of the kingdom refers to the message that Jesus and the apostles preached to Israel during His earthly ministry. This gospel was specifically about the coming kingdom of God on earth, which was promised to Israel (Matthew 4:23, Matthew 10:5-7). It was a message of repentance and baptism because Israel was being called to prepare for the establishment of the kingdom on earth, where Christ would reign as King (Matthew 24:14). This gospel emphasized the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Israel, pointing towards the Messianic kingdom that had been prophesied. The gospel of the grace of God, which Paul preached, is distinct in that it focuses on salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). This gospel does not require baptism or repentance for the kingdom, but rather emphasizes faith in the finished work of Christ-His death, burial, and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Paul was commissioned to preach this gospel specifically to the Gentiles, and he calls it “my gospel” (Romans 16:25) because it was a mystery revealed to him by Christ after His resurrection, distinct from the gospel of the kingdom preached to Israel (Galatians 1:11-12). The kingdom of God can refer to both the spiritual reign of God in the hearts of believers (Luke 17:21) and the future literal kingdom where Christ will reign on earth (Revelation 20:4-6). The gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace are different in focus. While the kingdom of God is a broader concept, the gospel of grace specifically addresses how one enters into that kingdom during this current dispensation of grace. Mark 16:14-16 in Context: When Jesus commanded His apostles to preach the gospel to all nations in Mark 16, they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom (which included repentance and baptism) because the church age had not yet begun. The gospel of grace would only be revealed later to Paul. It’s important to note that in Acts 2, Peter preached repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. Later, as the dispensation of grace was revealed, the emphasis shifted to faith in Christ alone, without works or baptism, as seen in Paul’s letters (Romans 3:21-28). In summary, while both gospels are part of God’s redemptive plan, they have distinct focuses and applications. The gospel of the kingdom was aimed at Israel, preparing them for their promised earthly kingdom, while the gospel of grace is for all nations during this current dispensation, offering salvation through faith in Christ’s finished work.

@@honestfaithdiscussions God never made a covenant with the gentiles :) which is called the wild olive tree... and the wild olive tree is grafted in to the already existed and cultivated olive tree which is Israel, the original Church who existed even at the time of Moses.. Acts 7:38 kjv This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: The Church continued on at the time of Jesus :) Matthew 18:15-17 kjv 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the"CHURCH",let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Apostle paul stated that the Church existed throughout all ages :) meaning, in the OT and NT and will continue forever... Ephesians 3:21 kjv Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

@@BIG_r. It’s important to rightly divide the Word and distinguish between Israel and the Church, as the Bible outlines them as distinct entities with different roles and purposes in God's plan. Let's take a closer look at the points you're raising. Romans 11 does speak of Gentiles (represented by the wild olive tree) being grafted into the cultivated olive tree, which is Israel. However, this doesn't mean that Gentiles become Israel. Paul is teaching that Gentile believers share in the spiritual blessings of Israel during the dispensation of grace, but it does not mean that the Church replaces Israel or that it has always existed. Romans 11:25 specifically mentions a temporary "blindness" of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. This means that Israel and the Church are two distinct entities in God's plan. The Church in the Wilderness In Acts 7:38, Stephen uses the word "church" (Greek ekklesia) in reference to the assembly of Israelites in the wilderness, but this doesn't mean that the Church in the New Testament sense existed back then. The word ekklesia simply means "assembly" or "called-out ones." In the context of Acts 7:38, it refers to the congregation of Israel. The Church as the Body of Christ was not revealed until Paul’s ministry, as it was a mystery hidden in ages past (Ephesians 3:1-10). The Church of the New Testament, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, did not exist until after Christ's death and resurrection. The passage you cite from Matthew 18 refers to ekklesia again, but Jesus here is speaking prophetically about the future Church, which He says He will build (Matthew 16:18). At this point, the Church had not yet been established, as Christ had not yet died, risen, and ascended. The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20), but this Church was not in existence during the Old Testament period. Paul does say in Ephesians 3:21 that God will receive glory in the Church "throughout all ages." This does not mean that the Church the body of Christ has existed throughout all of history, but rather that the Church, once established, will continue to bring glory to God in all future ages. Ephesians 3:9-10 explains that the Church was part of a "mystery" that had been hidden in God from the beginning of the world but was now revealed. The Church was not revealed in the Old Testament, and it is distinct from Israel, which had its own unique covenants with God. The Church, as the Body of Christ, was a "mystery" revealed to Paul and did not exist in the Old Testament. Israel is distinct from the Church, and the two should not be conflated. Israel has its own covenants and promises, many of which will be fulfilled in the future, while the Church is a new creation in Christ, made up of both Jews and Gentiles during the dispensation of grace. Romans 11 teaches us that Israel's promises have not been abolished but are on hold until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Meanwhile, the Church is God’s instrument for this present dispensation, where there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

I cant believe how intense the attacks are… it is HATED by a lot of so called believers.

The elect referred to in Matthew 24 is not referring to us it is referring to Israel. Those days will be shortened for their sake not for our sake. We are the elect too but we are not Israel - like it or hate it the church the body of Christ is not going through the tribulation.

@@honestfaithdiscussions These all say you are wrong. Romans 8:33, Colossians 3:12, Titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2, 1 Peter 5:13, 2 Peter 1:10, 2 John 1:1, 2 John 1:13

@@the_jeremiah_16_19_project how is that?

@@honestfaithdiscussions Every one of these letters are written to believers in Jesus. Every occurrence calls them the 'elect.' There is not a single verse of Scripture to support a pre-tribulation rapture. Not one.

@@the_jeremiah_16_19_project ok.. do you mind me asking, are you saved ? Do you trust Christs finished work for your salvation?

Yes, I am a Christian. I'm familiar with various theological perspectives. Are you referring to 'Yashar'el,' which is often interpreted as 'Israel' in Hebrew or seen as 'the righteous one of God'? What are your thoughts?

@@honestfaithdiscussions Do your research and you shall know what I am referring to... if you do not already know.

@@noomoon-echo sounds like you have a passion for getting into the Hebrew roots of things, but let’s not get confused. It's easy to get caught up in using names like ‘Yashua HaMashiach’ or ‘YVHW’ as though that somehow brings us closer to God. But scripture is clear that it’s faith in the finished work of Christ that saves us, not the language we use to describe Him (Romans 10:9-13). If using Hebrew names made you more holy, the Pharisees would have been the most righteous of all, and we know what Christ had to say about them (Matthew 23:27). Paul, who was given the revelation of the gospel for today’s dispensation, never emphasized the need to call Jesus by His Hebrew name. His focus was always on the grace of God, available to all-Jew or Gentile-through faith, not by rituals or special knowledge (Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-9). What we don’t want to do is make this a show of spirituality by using certain terms. The power is in the gospel, not in pronunciation. If you’re genuinely after the truth, it’s right there in front of you, and it has nothing to do with how ‘holy’ your Hebrew sounds.

You say there is no confusion here but unfortunately, as most of us don't read our bibles - the confusion comes from what we are taught by man. There is no confusion in the scripture at all - which is what I'm trying to highlight. We have confused it by doing what you are suggesting and muddling it all up. Paul instructs us to 'rightly divide' the Word of Truth. Do you mind me asking? How do you believe we get saved? Is it by grace through faith alone in Christs finished work? I'm guessing you are not of that view at all. Is it by what He did for us or is it by what we did? If its true and we are saved by grace through faith alone and nothing to do with what we did but what Christ did - then going out and getting the mark because of our weakness shouldnt be an issue right? We wont get thrown into the fire for that because we're saved by grace! You've put forward a wonderful little argument there - you havent listened to my explanation of tribulation verse The Tribulation and The Great Tribulation! A time of wrath! Your comment is full of conjecture and you havent referenced any scripture rightly divided - you sound like a very angry religious person. Which is fine - but this is not a religious channel.

You're referring to Revelation 20:4-6, which mentions the "first resurrection." This resurrection involves believers who reign with Christ during the millennial kingdom. The confusion comes from understanding that the "first resurrection" refers to a category of resurrections for the righteous, not a single event. The rapture and the resurrection of tribulation saints could both be considered part of this "first resurrection," which contrasts with the "second resurrection" after the millennium, when the unrighteous are raised for judgment.

I agree. It will be a time of destruction and terror but people will still be running around trying to build wealth and focus on cars and money and houses.. everything will keep rolling until Christs return.

Yes - the first 5 verses of Thessalonians speak of what must happen for the day of Christ, and our gathering together unto him.. We must see a 'falling away' (apostasy) and the man of sin the son of perdition must be revealed first.. the one who will build a temple and set himself up in it as though he is God. And yes, this is the same 'prince' spoken of who makes a 'covenant with many' in Daniel 9:27.

Thank you for your support!

I appreciate the comment but I can’t really make heads or tails of it.. it appears you have your own opinion on what these verses mean and they prove to you a pre trib rapture is a lie?

@@dooglitas Thank you for your detailed comment. I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts. However, I would like to address a few key points in response: Parousia vs. Erchomai: While you distinguish between the two words as separate events, the terms are often used interchangeably in Scripture, in this case to describe different aspects of Christ's second coming-parousia highlighting His presence and erchomai the manner in which He comes (in the clouds). These terms don’t describe two separate events but rather different aspects of the same event, focusing on Christ's return in power and glory. It’s important to note here that Jesus was speaking to Israel prior to the revelation of the mystery or the dispensation of the grace of God as delivered to Paul after Christs ascension - therefore this passage makes no reference to a rapture of the ‘church which is Christs body’. You mention that daily activities, such as eating, drinking, and marrying, that this wouldn’t or couldn’t occur at the end of the tribulation due to the devastation. However, in Matthew 24:37-39, Jesus compares His return to the days of Noah, where life appeared normal until the flood came. This indicates that people will still be engaged in daily routines, despite the signs of impending judgment. The sudden and unexpected nature of Christ's return emphasizes the need for readiness, rather than the total cessation of daily activities during tribulation. (Just like today when tragedy strikes the world keeps moving and people continue with their daily lives). You also pointed out the difference between airo (those taken away in judgment) and paralambano (taken with). While paralambano often connotes being taken in companionship or fellowship, in this context, it may also suggest removal in judgment, aligning with the Noah comparison where those "taken away" were those judged. The distinction you make is valid in some contexts, but here it fits within the broader narrative of judgment, as in Noah's flood. End of the Tribulation and the Millennial Reign: The devastation during the tribulation, as described in Revelation, will be unprecedented, but some survivors will make it through, particularly those who refuse the mark of the beast. They will be judged at Christ’s second coming and allowed to enter the Millennial Reign - however they will remain on earth and make up the nations. Daily activities, such as building and planting, could then resume during this 1,000-year reign (Zechariah 14:16), rather than during the final stages of the tribulation itself. Matthew 24 primarily speaks to the sudden and unexpected nature of Christ’s return, and any perceived contradictions between daily activities and devastation can be reconciled when we properly divide the timeline of events. I appreciate your insights, and I encourage further discussion as we continue to seek the truth of God’s Word. I will compose another video on Matthew 24 in particular to try and address some of this clearly. Thanks

@@honestfaithdiscussions Thank you for responding. Here is my response to several things you said: You say: " While you distinguish between the two words as separate events, the terms are often used interchangeably in Scripture, in this case to describe different aspects of Christ's second coming-parousia highlighting His presence and erchomai the manner in which He comes (in the clouds)." Actually this is not true. Erchomai does not "highlight" the manner in which He comes. It simply highlights his return/coming. The passages may contain descriptive matter concerning how He comes (in clouds, on a horse, etc.), but that is not inherent in the mere word "erchomai." It is certainly significant that when Jesus makes this change in vocabulary, it should be considered significant. It is clear in the greater picture of scripture that there are two separate events prophesied by Christ and Paul. Jesus says that He will Jesus said that He will come in the clouds with great power and glory (to earth to rule as king for 1000 years), but Jesus also said that He will come again to take His followers to His Father's house where He was going to "prepare a place" for them (John 14:2-3). In 1 Thes. 4:16-18, Paul says that Jesus will "descend" from heaven (note he does not use the word "verb"/"erchomai." He does not say that every eye will see Him or that He will descend to earth. Rather Jesus remains in the air and in the clouds. And the dead in Christ will be resurrected and meet Jesus in the clouds, and we who are alive and remain (on earth) will be snatched away (harpazo) to meet Jesus and the resurrected saints in the air. He does not say we go to earth but only that we will forever be with Christ. Jesus, speaking of this same event stated that we would be taken to His Father's house (which is in heaven). It is clear that there are two events. In one, Jesus comes for His followers (both living and dead) and snatches them up from the earth and takes them to the place He prepared for us in His Father's house. In the other event. Jesus comes WITH us (the church, resurrected and snatched away--Rev. 19:11/Jude 1:14) physically to earth, where we will reign with Him for 1000 years. There are two separate events. And I believe it is contextually accurate to say that the coming (erchomai) of Christ in Mat. 24:28-31 is a separate event from the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man in Mat. 24:37-39. You state: "You mention that daily activities, such as eating, drinking, and marrying, that this wouldn’t or couldn’t occur at the end of the tribulation due to the devastation. However, in Matthew 24:37-39, Jesus compares His return to the days of Noah, where life appeared normal until the flood came. This indicates that people will still be engaged in daily routines, despite the signs of impending judgment." This is true. However, the impending judgment is not the second coming of Jesus to earth. It is the 7-year tribulation/Jacob's Trouble. This is an absolutely necessary conclusion. All the complete devastation at the end of the tribulation, as I painstakingly outlined, will make it impossible for people (the tiny percentage who survive) to be doing the normal everyday activities of eating, drinking, marrying, planting, etc. It will be impossible at the end of the tribulation. Therefore, the statement of Jesus that the Day of the coming (appearance) of the Son of Man CANNOT be the second coming at the end of the tribulation. It must be while everyday life and activities are still going on. It cannot be at the end of the tribulation. It MUST be before all those things of the tribulation begin. There will be precious little food for people to eat at the end of the tribulation. The water will be poisoned. The land scorched. Radiation will fill the air. Every single city on earth will be gone. Decaying corpses will be everywhere. Who would get married under those conditions? Who would be buying or selling anything?

​You're correct that erchomai refers to Christ's coming, while parousia emphasizes His presence. My original point was that context helps clarify how these terms are used, as they sometimes describe different aspects of Christ's return, while other times they overlap. Regarding 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 and Matthew 24:31, these passages point to distinct events. The first describes Christ coming for His church (the body of Christ) in the rapture, which occurs prior to the tribulation. In this event, Christ remains in the air, and believers are "caught up" (harpazo) to meet Him in the clouds. In contrast, Revelation 19:11-14 and Matthew 24:31 describe Christ returning with His saints to earth at the end of the tribulation to begin His 1,000-year reign. These two events-the rapture and Christ’s second coming-are indeed distinct. At Christ’s second coming, at the end of the tribulation, Israel (the elect) is gathered from the four winds, as seen in Matthew 24:31. John 14:2-3, on the other hand, can be interpreted more generally as a promise of being with Christ in the Father’s house but not specifically tied to the rapture as we know it today. Although many later readers associate this with the rapture, the original audience likely understood this as referring to Christ’s return for believers, without the framework of the Gentile church or rapture, which hadn’t been revealed yet through Paul.

@@honestfaithdiscussions Thank you again for responding. I agree with most of what you said. However, your statement about John 14:2-3 was confusing. You state: "John 14:2-3, on the other hand, can be interpreted more generally as a promise of being with Christ in the Father’s house but not specifically tied to the rapture as we know it today." This is confusing and ignores the very important part of the verse where Jesus says, "I will COME again and receive you to myself, so that where I am, you may be also." This is not just a statement of a general promise of being with Christ in the Father's house. It is a very specific statement that He will come again and take us to be with Him. How is that not a statement of the rapture? There is no other time or way in which Jesus comes and TAKES US WITH HIM to the Father's house. That is the rapture. And BTW, the word translated "I will receive you (to myself)" is that same verb used in Mat. 24:40-41, where it says "one will be taken." It is paralambano. Same exact word and (I believe) the same event--i.e., the rapture.

It isn’t a statement of the rapture of the Church which is the Body of Christ because Jesus is speaking to Israel and telling them how will gather them to him at His 2nd coming using the angels from the 4 winds, just like He will do for His Church before the tribulation - where He descends from heaven and with a shout and with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, then the dead IN CHRIST will rise first and those who remain will be gathered to meet the Lord in the air. There are 2 distinct events and the reason for this is because God has not completed His promised 70 weeks with Israel. There is one week to go.

Excellent. Futurist always have to deny, change, or ignore God's inspired time statements. Unfortunately dispensationalist idea of rightly dividing the word is making sure that they always interpret in line with Scofield.

@JamesLJesus @ChristCenteredEschatology Thank you both for your comments! I understand the concern about time statements like "at hand" or "soon" in scripture. While you correctly note that Ezekiel and Amos deal with imminent judgment, it's important to recognize that prophecy can have dual fulfillment. For example, near-term events in Israel's history often serve as foreshadows of future, larger-scale judgments or events, such as those in Revelation. 2 Peter 3:8 reminds us that God’s perception of time is very different from ours, and prophetic "imminence" doesn't always mean immediate in human terms. Also, New Testament prophecies may apply to different timeframes, depending on the context and purpose. While God used time statements to warn Israel of immediate judgment, prophecies of Christ's return and future events often speak of a longer-term fulfillment, beyond the initial audience’s generation. Therefore, futurist interpretations aren't necessarily denying or stretching time statements-they are interpreting them within God’s broader timeline. Also - dispensationalism isn't reliant on Scofield or Darby - the early church fathers were dispesnational, but just because someone was or wasn't something is irrelevant.. Dispensationalism is rooted in Scripture and focuses on rightly dividing the Word, as 2 Timothy 2:15 instructs.

Who was Jesus speaking to in John 15, 16 & 17? You?

@@honestfaithdiscussions yes, Jesus said so... Jesus clearly stated, "the servant is not greater than his Lord" and you will be persecuted. In fact, even apostle Paul debunked the pretrib secret rapture 2,000 years ago.. Acts 14:22 kjv Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. Romans 5:3 kjv And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 2 Corinthians 12:10 kjv Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. Romans 8:36 kjv As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

No, those passage do not "debunk" the pretrib rapture. All Christians suffer tribulation in their lives. That is not speaking of THE Tribulation period. The tribulation period is not just about persecution. It is about judgment and destruction of the earth and annihilation of nearly the entire population of the earth. It is God's wrath upon the unbelieving world. The church is not subject to the wrath of God. Why on earth would anyone want to go through the horrors of the Tribulation? What purpose would it serve? There is no purpose for that to happen. The events of the Tribulation period are sent upon the world BY JESUS HIMSELF. Why would Jesus punish those who are saved by faith through the blood of the cross?

@@dooglitas The Great Tribulation is a bigger scale :) that's why it's called great.. Jesus clearly stated that he will raised those who died in Christ in the resurrection at the last day.. not 7 years prior to the last day.. John 6:40 kjv And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 11:23-24 kjv Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

@@BIG_r. thanks for clarifying. I agree that we will face trials, tribulations, persecutions and adversities, you are correct in pointing out that Paul said we are ‘killed all day long’ - and this is true. It does not however indicate that we who are saved by grace through faith alone during the dispensation of the grace of God are appointed to wrath via the tribulation. That time, including the ‘great tribulation’ are events pertaining to Israel - not the church. Israel are yet to be raised from the graves as described in Ezekiel 37 as the ‘fullness of the gentiles’ is yet to be fulfilled.

Ephesians 2:19-22: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Believers are indeed the temple - Israel and the body of Christ will grow into an holy temple in the Lord. This comment is designed to try to negate the temple that Christ is going to bring down from heaven and set up on earth. You are a snake. You are a liar.

​@honestfaithdiscussions thanks for your opinion. I'm sorry about you insults. I expect it. I was brought up being taught dispensationalism. I long ago realised that historical is the correct interpretation of prophecy. It was taught by the early church and has continued till this day. The early church taught that the church was the temple. The man of sin sitting in the temple was antichrist sitting at the head of the church. The hindrance and let, was the emperor and empire. When they were removed, the empire would be divided into 10, then would antichrist come. All this happened after Constantine removed the empire to the east. It was taken out of the way as scripture said. No one ruled from Rome from that time till 1870 except for the pope. Western emperors ruled from Ravena and other places, not Rome. Joseph Medwd, d 1633, wrote. The Jews knew when Messiah was to come but when he came, they didn't recognise him, as they were expecting the wrong type of person. Likewise the church knew when antichrist was to come but they didn't recognise him as they were expecting the wrong type of person.

​@@honestfaithdiscussionsThanks for your reply. I fully expect to be called a liar from a dispy. That is their common reply when anyone challenges their view. ISAIAH 44.28. That said of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform ALL my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem THOU SHALL BE BUILT, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. You and most people, not all,are relying on secular Chronology instead of scripture. Th Chronology of Ptolemy a pagan astrologer and astronomer who thought the sun revolved round the earth. There is no gap between Ezra 6 and 7. Notice that the temple was built "According to the commandment of Cyrus and Darius and Artaxerxes, king of Persia. But was finished in the 6th year of Darius. Darius and Artaxerxes were one and the same person. In chapter 7 we go into the 7th year of Artaxerxes from the 6th of Darius. Nehemiah only repaired the walls.

@@davidsherriff9632 Isaiah 44:28: Isaiah’s prophecy about Cyrus is absolutely correct. 150 years before Cyrus! Cyrus allowed the rebuilding of the temple and the city (Ezra 1:1-4). However, the decree in Daniel 9:25 specifically refers to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls and streets, which was issued by Artaxerxes in 445 BC (Nehemiah 2:1-8), not by Cyrus. There were actually 4 decrees. While secular sources like Ptolemy can provide helpful historical context, we do not rely on them solely. The chronology of Persian kings is documented in both Scripture and history. The Bible clearly distinguishes between Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, each of whom issued separate decrees at different times. The dates of these events are supported by archaeological evidence and historical records, not just secular chronology. There is a gap of about 60 years between Ezra 6 (the completion of the temple under Darius in 516 BC) and Ezra 7 (Ezra’s journey to Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes in 458 BC). This gap is clear in both Scripture and historical timelines. These are separate events with significant time between them. Cyrus the Great ruled from 559-530 BC and issued the decree to rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:1-4). Darius I (Darius the Great) ruled from 522-486 BC and reaffirmed Cyrus’ decree during a period of opposition (Ezra 6:1-12). Artaxerxes I ruled from 465-424 BC and issued the decree allowing Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8). These are distinct figures in both the Bible and historical records. While it’s true that Nehemiah primarily focused on rebuilding the walls (Nehemiah 2:17), this was the fulfillment of Daniel 9:25, which spoke of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in troubled times. The rebuilding of the city and its defenses was crucial to the prophecy, and Artaxerxes' decree enabled this work. Scripture and history clearly distinguish these figures and events. The commandment in Daniel 9:25 refers specifically to the decree by Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls and streets, not just the temple.

Cyrus decree was in 538 and is outlined in Ezra 1:1-4. His decree specifically mentions the construction of the temple - not the rebuilding of the streets and walls as described in Daniel 9:25. Isaiah is not a false prophet. Daniel is not a false prophet - everything they wrote has come true and will continue to unfold. There were actually a number of decrees but there is only one Daniel refers to - that of Artexerses as I have already explained. Nehemiah 2:1-8 describes the decree of Artaxerxes allowing Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls and the city itself which matches Daniel 9:25. This decree focuses specifically on the reconstruction of Jerusalem’s infrastructure, including its streets and walls - Cyrus decree does not. If it was Jesus that confirmed the covenant with many as you mistakenly surmise - I assume this is the new covenant? Did Jesus make the new covenant with Israel for 49 years did He? Jeremiah 32 says that the covenant that God makes with Israel is ‘everlasting’? My question to you is, why would Jesus confirm an everlasting covenant with many for 1 week if it’s everlasting? And when He so blatantly makes the new covenant with ‘Israel’ all through the bible, why would he randomly refer to them in Daniel 9:27 as ‘many’ rather than Israel? Who told you and gave you the wisdom that the second half of the tribulation ended with Cornelius? What do you do? Just make it up as you go or do you pray direct to Satan for your lies? Have you ever read your bible? Do you even know the gospel? Do you know who Paul is? Or are you a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Trolling the truth? You fool. I’m assuming you call yourself a Christian? And you wish to fight the truth? The Word of God is like a 2 edged sword and you have zero chance of infecting it when its rightly divided. You want to call sound biblical teaching that highlights the gospel of our salvation Jesuit? You fool. You worker of iniquity. The wrath of God will be poured out all over you unless you wake up and pull your head out and follow the truth. By the way - Im not interested in who you think invented dispensationalism - and I’m really not interested in who predicted anything because that has nothing to do with me. The bible is dispensational whether you like it or not, and if it isn’t read dispensationally you will never reconcile errors such as the 4 or 5 in your comment. I’ll leave you with this : "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward." Ephesians 3:2 This world is in an absolute mess because of so called Christian’s like yourself who deny the power of God and lead people to hell. You should be ashamed of yourself and come to the knowledge of the truth.

Thanks for your comment.

So you deny Christ then? Who do you follow?

This is bazaar. A preterist believes all prophecy has been fulfilled. I clearly show here that God hasn’t finished with true Israel - that they are just in the graves until the fullness of the gentiles come in. Which cancels out the replacement theology idea too. If you would like a group of people to exist in your mind, I can’t stop that. All I can do is tell you the truth and it’s then up to you. Thanks for watching anyway.

@juliannethompson4432 I hear your questions and your points.. If you think I’m a preterist or a replacement theologian you haven’t watched my video properly. I’m neither of those. God might own the earth - he certainly does - but right now He has allowed Satan to be its prince - the ruler of the airwaves - we need to wake up and be aware of that so we don’t get deceived. Read Josephus writings then tell me they survived. Btw Luke 2:36 would have been 50 years before the siege of Jerusalem so they were still around. Today the religion is Judaism - it began with the oral traditions from the Pharisees written down a couple of hundred years later. They practice Judaism - they have the Talmud and the Kabbalah. They are not descendants of Jacob - they are from Eastern Europe and they picked it up over the last couple thousand years.. there is no temple so it is not possible for a Jew to practice their religion without it - therefore - there can not be any Jews. The Rothschild bankers don’t get any of my glory, I’m just exposing them for contributing to the creation of this great deception. That family are magicians and kabbalists, they control the world alongside the prince of this world - doing his work.. don’t be deceived. Israel are simply in the graves awaiting their resurrection that God prophesied through Ezekiel in chapter 37.

@juliannethompson4432 revelation 3:9 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. This is God discussing the fake Jews and the real Jews here at the beginning of the tribulation.. just after the true Israel is raised.. that’s when God fulfills the real prophecy.. not this demonic deception we see on earth today..

I don’t know how anyone could say that they would pray specifically for a group of religious people.. what about the Hindus? The Muslims? The atheists? Everyone needs the gospel of Christ - Everyone! His death burial and resurrection and His shed blood as payment for sin in order to be saved.. nothing more nothing less and this is equally available to all people.. no group is exempt. No group is seperate or coming in another way- there’s only one way and it’s the same way for all people - Christ. Pray for all men - not just a group. Allow God to deal with His people when He is ready at His appointed time.

It’s Judaism. Talmud. Kabbalah etc.. Parts of it may have come from the Pharisees but it is not Old Testament Israel.

They were annihalated. There was hardly any left prior to 70Ad.. let alone after. Read Josephus account and you’ll see.

@juliannethompson4432 correct. This is exactly what I said and this is exactly what the scripture teaches. The only issue here is you appear to be of the view that Israel are not in the graves like the bible and history say. They will be raised from the graves at the appointed time.

@juliannethompson4432 Ofcourse the 12 tribes still existed - this is a verse from Luke 2:36 when Jesus was walking on the earth. We’ll before 70AD.

🙏

@katiterry1200 - sure I can do that.. thanks for the suggestion

Sorry. A long time ago to be away from the business and people. That changed me from part of the world and a non believer into a Christian. I work from home! The best and have silence all around me. I talk to God all the time. I know he listens and I thank you again! Stay the course.

@joanstaron1310 we’re all filthy sinners - that’s ok.. but thanks to Christ and His wonderful gift - when we accept that gift, His finished work on the cross - He makes us the righteousness of God in Him. Rest in Him. Trust Him. We all fight the flesh - that won’t change.. but soon you will be changed - in the blink of an eye - at the last ‘trump’. Hahaha.. Remember these 2 verses - ‘In due time - Christ died for the ungodly’ Rom 5:6 and Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am chief. 1 Tim 15-17.

@@honestfaithdiscussions Amen. Keep preaching the truth! God bless you and protect you. 🙏🙏🙏

Excellent explanation

@theprogrammer8200 the bible says that the land of Israel is Canaan. The entire land. Not a part of it.. but all of it. It always will be too btw.. Israel were the people - Gods people - and they were the direct descendants of Jacob. Jacob became Israel. His descendants became the 12 tribes of Israel - the House of Israel - they resided in the ‘land of Israel’ which was Canaan. The land of Israel was always Canaan. Didn’t you see the maps? Did you not know that Canaan was the promised land? Canaan eventually became Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan because Israel (the people) were slowly being wiped out because of their unbelief. Hope that helps.

@timsthinks8636 true

@timsthinks8636 the only thing that I might add to that is that God is not dealing with Israel just yet because us gentiles are still here and Israel have not yet been raised from the graves.

How about proving with the Bible? Or are you afraid, that your interpretation is just what it is: "Interpretation"? @@timsthinks8636

@@theprogrammer8200Prove that God gave the Israelites the land of Canaan? Did you think that God gave The Israelites the land of Israel? 😂 No.. I suppose it’s a common mistake for the biblically illiterate. Here’s one if many passages. HFD has put the maps in his videos too. Genesis 12:1-9 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. 4 So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came. 6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. 7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. 8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord. 9 And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south.

@joanstaron1310 give me a few hints 🙏

@@honestfaithdiscussions Barack Obama, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, Xi Jinping (that Red Dragon) to start, those are my top 3 . Maybe even Klaus Shwab. Does the Anti know who he is yet? Possibly Trump. If so, I was fooled! But what you say makes sense too.

@joanstaron1310 here’s something I’ve learnt.. in order to test the likelihood of a candidate being the antichrist type their name and then antichrist into a RUclips search.. if you do that with all the names you listed except the last one - there’s millions of videos on it.. then type the last name you listed there in and ‘antichrist’ after it and see what comes up.. 2/5ths of nothing.. No one’s gonna see this guy coming.. if it’s all over the internet saying he is - that’s exactly who it isn’t.

@@honestfaithdiscussions makes sense. Ok back to Trump. I can't believe I pray for him. Maybe to not become the Anti. Lol. Just figures doesn't it. Thank you for your test!

@gamingaccount9890 you have the choice to believe whatever you like and that’s incredibly humble of you to take that stance.. We don’t think anything here.. we just review the scriptures and go by what they say regardless of whether we think they might be fair.