Israel.

[Aaron56]

From the beginning there has been one plan of salvation and it no longer requires a set apart people. Done, finished.

Actually, it does. And that person is still Christ. Yet ALL who are in Him become the flesh and bones of Him.

The chosen people of God are named in Isaac - children of promise.

"6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

Physical DNA benefits no one in the Kingdom of God.

Just a bit further in Romans the prophet Hosea is quoted:

“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

This comes full circle back to 1 Peter:

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy"

The people of God were always people of promise. From faithful Abel to believing Abram (the Chaldean) to Christ. Now, all who are the sons of God, His own special people, are found in the Body of Christ. AND, we all come to our Father in the same manner - through the blood of His only Begotten Son.

 

[Mem]

God fulfilled ALL His Promises in Christ Jesus not in a piece of real estate.

Why then is there all this dispute over that particular piece of land?

 

[HeIsHere]

Why then is there all this dispute over that particular piece of land?

Man made.

 

[Mem]

Man made.

Yes, it is coveted for some reason, and if it is nothing to be coveted then it'd make more sense that everyone would take a devil may care attitude toward it. But as it is, it seems to be considered the holy grail as far as desired possessions go.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Why then is there all this dispute over that particular piece of land?

Because satan knows it was promised to Christ, who now owns it and from there will rule the world. So he is doing what comes naturally to him - he covets what doesn't belong to him.

 

[HeIsHere]

Yes, it is coveted for some reason, and if it is nothing to be coveted then it'd make more sense that everyone would take a devil may care attitude toward it. But as it is, it seems to be considered the holy grail as far as desired possessions go.

Historically, it has provided the USA/UK/Germany a needed ally in a very oil rich part of the world, essential to its economies and mix in a bunch of religious fervor and here we are.

 

[Mem]

Because satan knows it was promised to Christ, who now owns it and from there will rule the world. So he doing what comes naturally to him - he covets what doesn't belong to him.

It is interesting that, while God authorized (? I don't know if that's the right word there) the destruction of the temple, He allowed the mosque to be established there, so I wonder at the significance of that.

 

[HeIsHere]

Because satan knows it was promised to Christ, who now owns it and from there will rule the world. So he is doing what comes naturally to him - he covets what doesn't belong to him.

I am pretty sure Christ Jesus stated that His Kingdom was not of this world.

 

[Mem]

Historically, it has provided the USA/UK/Germany a needed ally in a very oil rich part of the world, essential to its economies and mix in a bunch of religious fervor and here we are.

If only each nation would ensure at least the safety of the other.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

It is interesting that, while God authorized (? I don't know if that's the right word there) the destruction of the temple, He allowed the mosque to be established there, so I wonder at the significance of that.

Well, first off, the temple was on Mt Zion further south in the city of David, not where the "temple mount" is, which in reality was Fort Antonio, the Roman encampment. This has been known for over 50 years, but worldly religion has ignored it to embrace a location based on a tradition established some time during the middle ages (may be off on the age a bit). It's really funny to watch religious folk praying at the western wall of the Roman encampment. I'm sure God's laughing to.

Second, scripture says that Jerusalem will be trod underfoot of the gentiles until their time is done, which will be when he returns. So I don't think he really cares what they do there

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I am pretty sure Christ Jesus stated that His Kingdom was not of this world.

Not of this world, but it will be fully in this world when he returns. He is a man; men live on earth made for them. Men were not made for heaven. Heaven will come to earth as it was in the beginning, not vice versa.

 

[Aaron56]

Why then is there all this dispute over that particular piece of land?

Two brothers fighting. As was prophesied;

“Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the Lord has heard your affliction.
He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man’s hand against him.
And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

But, according to promise, more of Ishmael's natural descendants will come to Christ than those of Isaac's

Paul notes this when juxtaposing the Law vs. the Covenant in Christ:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.

This is Ishmael born to Hagar and Isaac born to Sarah

But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,

Here, Ishmael was born according to the flesh and Isaac according to promise. But Paul tells us something in the next line...

...which things are symbolic.

So, the women and children are symbolic of something. That means we cannot stop at their simple meaning, their existence tells us something greater.

For these are the two covenants:

Paul gets to it right away: the symbolize two covenants. This is where it gets interesting.

...the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage

Hold on! The Jews, people of Issac's line, were at Mt. Sinai, NOT Ishmael's. And Paul is saying that what was given at Sinai (the Law) actually created bondage.... slavery. We should read on...

which is Hagar for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children

So Hagar, the slave woman, is liken unto the current Jews who are under the Law. Do you know how offensive this would have been to the Jews! To say that they are living like Hagar's descendants!

Paul continues...

but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

The Jerusalem from above is the home of the children of promise. It is a city that could not be built with man's hands but only provided by God.

And just to bring the matter home...

For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,

Naturally, the woman who was barren was Sarah. BUT Paul is now talking about children of promise, NOT natural children. So, the barren, the woman not given a covenant of promise from God, was Hagar. Without a covenant of children of promise she could have no children of promise. But Paul continues to explain...

You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

So, without a promise, Hagar would be desolate. BUT she "...has many more children than she who has a husband." Sarah was the one with a husband. Yet, Hagar's descendants will enter the promise of God in greater number than those of Sarah.

Why? Because BEING A CHILD OF PROMISE WAS NEVER CONNECTED TO NATURAL DNA! It was always connected to something only God could provide. And we know how He provided His only begotten Son.

 

[HeIsHere]

If only each nation would ensure at least the safety of the other.

Perhaps that should have been a consideration, before they ethnically cleansed the land and are continuing to do so, of the people living there.

I see/hear no prophet of God, when the movement started, telling them to take these actions

 

[Aaron56]

Perhaps that should have been a consideration, before they ethnically cleansed the land and are continuing to do so, of the people living there.

I see/hear no prophet of God, when the movement started, telling them to take these actions

Reports of at least 60,000 Palestinians killed so far. It's likely more. Weird how Jesus and His disciples killed no one yet Christians are not deterred when Jews kill so many. Racism is rampant in the church. It's disgusting.

 

[Leastofall]

Why then is there all this dispute over that particular piece of land?

Very good question....it all stems from possession of the temple mount. That is front and center of all.

 

[Leastofall]

You mean the man made counterfeit narrative developed in tandem with the release of the Scofield bible and its promotion

(John Darby) across North America which has blinded Christians, which actually takes away and diminishes Christ Jesus and His completed work.

The fact remains they rejected their Messiah and Christ Jesus warned them of the consequences for doing so...

But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
Luke 23:28

From the beginning there has been one plan of salvation and it no longer requires a set apart people. Done, finished.

Jesus was first sent to the lost sheep of Israel.....so you believe the word of the Lord returned void?

 

[Aaron56]

Very good question....it all stems from possession of the temple mount. That is front and center of all.

When your goal is something created your character will always bend toward the natural proclivities of the flesh.

 

[Aaron56]

Jesus was first sent to the lost sheep of Israel.....so you believe the word of the Lord returned void?

No way. All the first disciples were Jews by birth.

 

[Mem]

Two brothers fighting. As was prophesied;

“Behold, you are with child,
And you shall bear a son.
You shall call his name Ishmael,
Because the Lord has heard your affliction.
He shall be a wild man;
His hand shall be against every man,
And every man’s hand against him.
And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.”

But, according to promise, more of Ishmael's natural descendants will come to Christ than those of Isaac's

Paul notes this when juxtaposing the Law vs. the Covenant in Christ:

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.

This is Ishmael born to Hagar and Isaac born to Sarah

But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,

Here, Ishmael was born according to the flesh and Isaac according to promise. But Paul tells us something in the next line...

...which things are symbolic.

So, the women and children are symbolic of something. That means we cannot stop at their simple meaning, their existence tells us something greater.

For these are the two covenants:

Paul gets to it right away: the symbolize two covenants. This is where it gets interesting.

...the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage

Hold on! The Jews, people of Issac's line, were at Mt. Sinai, NOT Ishmael's. And Paul is saying that what was given at Sinai (the Law) actually created bondage.... slavery. We should read on...

which is Hagar for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children

So Hagar, the slave woman, is liken unto the current Jews who are under the Law. Do you know how offensive this would have been to the Jews! To say that they are living like Hagar's descendants!

Paul continues...

but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

The Jerusalem from above is the home of the children of promise. It is a city that could not be built with man's hands but only provided by God.

And just to bring the matter home...

For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,

Naturally, the woman who was barren was Sarah. BUT Paul is now talking about children of promise, NOT natural children. So, the barren, the woman not given a covenant of promise from God, was Hagar. Without a covenant of children of promise she could have no children of promise. But Paul continues to explain...

You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

So, without a promise, Hagar would be desolate. BUT she "...has many more children than she who has a husband." Sarah was the one with a husband. Yet, Hagar's descendants will enter the promise of God in greater number than those of Sarah.

Why? Because BEING A CHILD OF PROMISE WAS NEVER CONNECTED TO NATURAL DNA! It was always connected to something only God could provide. And we know how He provided His only begotten Son.

It seems that the entire middle east is God forsaken.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

No way. All the first disciples were Jews by birth.

Hate to be pedantic, but some were of the tribes of Israel and some were of the tribe of Judah (Jew). It's an important distinction to make because the prophets said God would make a new covenant with the house of israel and the house of Judah, and the fulfillment of that prophecy just prior to the cross gets lost to people susceptible to the dispensational delusion who only think in terms of Jews, and consequently they project the fulfillment of that prophecy into the future