No Hope ---Until Jesus

[1LoverofGod]

Inspiring short message from Don Stewart on Hope for Our Times with Tom Hughes, Emphasizing where our Hope comes from

Video Time: less than one minute.....

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I don't understand how Don has come to this conclusion in the video below, it clearly mentions the city of Damascus getting destroyed nor do i agree on his view about the Nepihilim!!

What on earth has gotten into him, has he taken some crazy pills or something ???

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Margery]

I don't understand how Don has come to this conclusion in the video below, it clearly mentions the city of Damascus getting destroyed nor do i agree on his view about the Nepihilim!!

What on earth has gotten into him, has he taken some crazy pills or something ???

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I'll put this onto my viewing list tonight and have a look. I've not kept up with him or Tom lately.

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I'll put this onto my viewing list tonight and have a look. I've not kept up with him or Tom lately.

You'll be shocked, his gives a summation of the start and then elaborates into what he considers common misinterpretations.

His Isaiah 17 being a fulfilled prophecy pretty much stopped me from watchin the rest which he does right off the bat

 

[1LoverofGod]

You'll be shocked, his gives a summation of the start and then elaborates into what he considers common misinterpretations.

His Isaiah 17 being a fulfilled prophecy pretty much stopped me from watchin the rest which he does right off the bat

Maybe he means Isaiah 17 was partially fulfilled?

Here is Jack Kelley's take on Isaiah 17......

The Slow Motion Fulfillment Of Isaiah 17​

“See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid” (Isaiah 17:1-2).

Isaiah 17 is an oracle concerning Damascus that was partially fulfilled when the Assyrians conquered Aram in 732 BC and 10 years later conquered the breakaway Northern Kingdom of Israel.

It’s the portion of Isaiah 17 that were not fulfilled that concern us today, and the most obvious one is the fact that Damascus has never been reduced to a heap of ruins. Although the city has been conquered several times it has yet to be destroyed like the prophecy of Isaiah 17:1-2 requires.

Damascus has proved to be a most resilient city. It was conquered by the Israelites (1000 BC), the Assyrians (732 BC), the Babylonians (606 BC), the Persians (530 BC), the Greeks (330 BC), the Nabateans (85 BC), the Romans (63 BC), the Byzantines (634 AD), the Mamelukes (1250 AD) and the Ottoman Turks (1516 AD). But the city itself has always survived and is now claimed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world with a 5,000 year history. Its current population is close to 2 million, yet Isaiah 17:1-2 indicates that it will one day cease to exist.

More:

The Slow Motion Fulfillment Of Isaiah 17 – Grace thru faith

Commentary by Jack Kelley “See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid” (Isaiah 17:1-2).

gracethrufaith.com

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

Maybe he means Isaiah 17 was partially fulfilled?

Here is Jack Kelley's take on Isaiah 17......

The Slow Motion Fulfillment Of Isaiah 17​

“See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid” (Isaiah 17:1-2).

Isaiah 17 is an oracle concerning Damascus that was partially fulfilled when the Assyrians conquered Aram in 732 BC and 10 years later conquered the breakaway Northern Kingdom of Israel.

It’s the portion of Isaiah 17 that were not fulfilled that concern us today, and the most obvious one is the fact that Damascus has never been reduced to a heap of ruins. Although the city has been conquered several times it has yet to be destroyed like the prophecy of Isaiah 17:1-2 requires.

Damascus has proved to be a most resilient city. It was conquered by the Israelites (1000 BC), the Assyrians (732 BC), the Babylonians (606 BC), the Persians (530 BC), the Greeks (330 BC), the Nabateans (85 BC), the Romans (63 BC), the Byzantines (634 AD), the Mamelukes (1250 AD) and the Ottoman Turks (1516 AD). But the city itself has always survived and is now claimed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world with a 5,000 year history. Its current population is close to 2 million, yet Isaiah 17:1-2 indicates that it will one day cease to exist.

More:

The Slow Motion Fulfillment Of Isaiah 17 – Grace thru faith

Commentary by Jack Kelley “See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid” (Isaiah 17:1-2).

gracethrufaith.com

No he made it clear that it was fulfilled and said the verse was referring to the kingdom rather than the city itself.

He was getting flamed in the comments section too about that and his disbelief of the Nephilim

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

Maybe he means Isaiah 17 was partially fulfilled?

Here is Jack Kelley's take on Isaiah 17......

The Slow Motion Fulfillment Of Isaiah 17​

“See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid” (Isaiah 17:1-2).

Isaiah 17 is an oracle concerning Damascus that was partially fulfilled when the Assyrians conquered Aram in 732 BC and 10 years later conquered the breakaway Northern Kingdom of Israel.

It’s the portion of Isaiah 17 that were not fulfilled that concern us today, and the most obvious one is the fact that Damascus has never been reduced to a heap of ruins. Although the city has been conquered several times it has yet to be destroyed like the prophecy of Isaiah 17:1-2 requires.

Damascus has proved to be a most resilient city. It was conquered by the Israelites (1000 BC), the Assyrians (732 BC), the Babylonians (606 BC), the Persians (530 BC), the Greeks (330 BC), the Nabateans (85 BC), the Romans (63 BC), the Byzantines (634 AD), the Mamelukes (1250 AD) and the Ottoman Turks (1516 AD). But the city itself has always survived and is now claimed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world with a 5,000 year history. Its current population is close to 2 million, yet Isaiah 17:1-2 indicates that it will one day cease to exist.

More:

The Slow Motion Fulfillment Of Isaiah 17 – Grace thru faith

Commentary by Jack Kelley “See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted and left to flocks, which will lie down, with no one to make them afraid” (Isaiah 17:1-2).

gracethrufaith.com

On a brief derailment it's good to see you posting Rose

 

[1LoverofGod]

No he made it clear that it was fulfilled and said the verse was referring to the kingdom rather than the city itself.

He was getting flamed in the comments section too about that and his disbelief of the Nephilim

Maybe his age is catching up to him?

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

Maybe his age is catching up to him?

Yeah i think Andy Woods also holds the same view that Isaiah 17 is a fulfilled prophecy too

 

[1LoverofGod]

Yeah i think Andy Woods also holds the same view that Isaiah 17 is a fulfilled prophecy too

I suppose its one of those things like whether
Its a tomato or a tomahto lol
I tend to think that its fulfilled when it is uninhabitable. Thus far it has not been left desolate, so I think its yet to be fulfilled.
But then, I wouldn't sell my thoughts for two cents, because it would spark uncontrollable laughter

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I suppose its one of those things like whether
Its a tomato or a tomahto lol
I tend to think that its fulfilled when it is uninhabitable. Thus far it has not been left desolate, so I think its yet to be fulfilled.
But then, I wouldn't sell my thoughts for two cents, because it would spark uncontrollable laughter

I agree with you, the verse refers to Damascus city and it still remains habitable so to me it still has to be fulfilled as a prophecy

 

[Margery]

You'll be shocked, his gives a summation of the start and then elaborates into what he considers common misinterpretations.

His Isaiah 17 being a fulfilled prophecy pretty much stopped me from watchin the rest which he does right off the bat

You were right, he's got a similar take on Isaiah 17 as Andy Woods- but his reasoning is slightly different from Andy. He's saying that references to Damascus are really referring to Syria as a whole sort of like how Americans say Washington DC as a way of saying the leadership of their nation. If he's going in that direction I wonder how he sees the parallel Damascus passage in Jer 49 and the Syria references in Ez 32 because those fit neatly with Isaiah 17 and seem to point towards the end time when Israel WILL turn to God. And those do have references to "in that day" which Dr Walvoord I think it was said that often meant end times.

But the context seems to be about one of Don's books that he wrote with a lot of similar different takes on the usual prophecy subjects. Sounds interesting actually. There are some controversial areas of prophecy where good people differ (Babylon, Damascus etc)

He went into why he doesn't see Psalm 83 as a prophecy- and that would be consistent if he thought a lot of the Syrian references in Isaiah 17, Jeremiah 49, Ezek 32 are all fulfilled in the past. He disagrees with Bill Salus completely so maybe he figures that Jeremiah 49 is all in the past too.

I might read it at some point just to see what direction he's going with all that. It's free but I don't know if I have the energy to plow thru it. But it might be interesting to see how exactly he gets thru some of the statements about Damascus. Because if he and Andy use those fulfilled in the past arguments for Damascus that blows Andy's very good argument that Babylon wasn't fully fulfilled in the past because it's using the same logic.

Tom said something about Don's view of the Nephilim but I got distracted so I never did find out anything about that rabbit trail. I have a very good book on that written as a doctoral thesis using a lot of very good grammatical and historical arguments that the Nephilim did exist and weren't just the hoochie mamas of Cain mixing it up with the sons of Seth as Marzulli likes to joke (and point out one of the excellent reasons why the Nephilim were from angels mating with human women).

Tom also said Don holds a similar view as Soothkeep (Lee Brainard) regarding the timing of the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls that they are occur alonside one another. Seal 1 and Trumpet 1 etc but then they continue thru the whole of the Tribulation once they start. Listening to Lee explain that one made me go cross eyed. Never did fully grasp that concept.

However for those who worry about what I just said, Lee is NOT saying that we are in the Seals or any such nonsense. It's strictly after the Rapture that Lee and Don place the judgments however weird their ideas of simultaneous and continuous judgments get.

I have a hard time listening to Tom and Don - it's just me. I get distracted by Don's breathing patterns when he's talking, (can't turn off the nurse brain) and Tom just goes in circles some times and by the time he gets back on track my mind wandered off. (attention span of a flea most days) I should just read the transcripts.

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

You were right, he's got a similar take on Isaiah 17 as Andy Woods- but his reasoning is slightly different from Andy. He's saying that references to Damascus are really referring to Syria as a whole sort of like how Americans say Washington DC as a way of saying the leadership of their nation. If he's going in that direction I wonder how he sees the parallel Damascus passage in Jer 49 and the Syria references in Ez 32 because those fit neatly with Isaiah 17 and seem to point towards the end time when Israel WILL turn to God. And those do have references to "in that day" which Dr Walvoord I think it was said that often meant end times.

But the context seems to be about one of Don's books that he wrote with a lot of similar different takes on the usual prophecy subjects. Sounds interesting actually. There are some controversial areas of prophecy where good people differ (Babylon, Damascus etc)

He went into why he doesn't see Psalm 83 as a prophecy- and that would be consistent if he thought a lot of the Syrian references in Isaiah 17, Jeremiah 49, Ezek 32 are all fulfilled in the past. He disagrees with Bill Salus completely so maybe he figures that Jeremiah 49 is all in the past too.

I might read it at some point just to see what direction he's going with all that. It's free but I don't know if I have the energy to plow thru it. But it might be interesting to see how exactly he gets thru some of the statements about Damascus. Because if he and Andy use those fulfilled in the past arguments for Damascus that blows Andy's very good argument that Babylon wasn't fully fulfilled in the past because it's using the same logic.

Tom said something about Don's view of the Nephilim but I got distracted so I never did find out anything about that rabbit trail. I have a very good book on that written as a doctoral thesis using a lot of very good grammatical and historical arguments that the Nephilim did exist and weren't just the hoochie mamas of Cain mixing it up with the sons of Seth as Marzulli likes to joke (and point out one of the excellent reasons why the Nephilim were from angels mating with human women).

Tom also said Don holds a similar view as Soothkeep (Lee Brainard) regarding the timing of the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls that they are occur alonside one another. Seal 1 and Trumpet 1 etc but then they continue thru the whole of the Tribulation once they start. Listening to Lee explain that one made me go cross eyed. Never did fully grasp that concept.

However for those who worry about what I just said, Lee is NOT saying that we are in the Seals or any such nonsense. It's strictly after the Rapture that Lee and Don place the judgments however weird their ideas of simultaneous and continuous judgments get.

I have a hard time listening to Tom and Don - it's just me. I get distracted by Don's breathing patterns when he's talking, (can't turn off the nurse brain) and Tom just goes in circles some times and by the time he gets back on track my mind wandered off. (attention span of a flea most days) I should just read the transcripts.

Lol now i know why his books are all for free

 

[Hol]

Tom also said Don holds a similar view as Soothkeep (Lee Brainard) regarding the timing of the Seals, Trumpets and Bowls that they are occur alonside one another. Seal 1 and Trumpet 1 etc but then they continue thru the whole of the Tribulation once they start. Listening to Lee explain that one made me go cross eyed. Never did fully grasp that concept.

Yeah, I’m considering taking time to look at that concept. I haven’t heard Don & Lee’s views yet. I felt challenged to look at it after someone in my Sunday School brought up the various earthquakes in each of the final judgement series.

I might ask him if he thinks the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls are simultaneously happening on earth.

 

[Margery]

Yeah, I’m considering taking time to look at that concept. I haven’t heard Don & Lee’s views yet. I felt challenged to look at it after someone in my Sunday School brought up the various earthquakes in each of the final judgement series.

I might ask him if he thinks the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls are simultaneously happening on earth.

It's not a bad concept actually. Just difficult to place everything. I don't agree with it BUT, I also want to give it a more thorough look. What irritates me about it is that it throws the whole timeline of the Trib into confusion and I hold to the idea that the Bible is meant to be read and understood. Complicated and confusing theories, however interesting are often dead ends that don't go anywhere useful.

Lol now i know why his books are all for free