What's new
Christian Community Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!

UN Conference On Two-state Solution To Mideast Conflict Set For June

An international conference meant to resurrect the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will take place from June 17 to 20 at the UN headquarters in New York, a UN spokeswoman said Friday.

The conference stems from a resolution approved in December by the UN General Assembly and it will be co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia.
The dates of this meeting were confirmed by UN spokeswoman Sharon Birch.

A diplomat in Paris close to preparations for the conference said it should pave the way for more countries to recognize a full-blown Palestinian state.

Nearly 150 countries recognize the State of Palestine, which has observer status at the United Nations but is not a full member as the Security Council has not voted to admit it.

More

 
I hope they do.

Because if they do, then that is one step closer to Ezek 38 where it says that Israel is dwelling securely without bars or gates on the mountains of Israel.

Those Mountains are mostly in the so called West Bank area that is really the Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria. The invaders from Jordan took it in 1948 and renamed it the West Bank- referring to the fact it is west of the Jordan River which was supposed to be the dividing line. The invading Jordanians forcibly evicted Jews from their homes, lands and businesses, and took the lot.

Israel took it back in 67, only 19 years later. But instead of doing to the Jordanian invaders what they'd done to the Israelis in '48, they allowed them to stay in lands and homes that were stolen from Jewish families.

And we know how they repaid that kindness.

But over in Ezek 38 the verses specify The MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL referring to the mountainous range running north south above the banks of the Jordan. Jerusalem sits in the centre but most of those mountains are in the "west bank" area.

IF we see Israel take THAT land back permanently, and settle into that land (that belongs to them) then it sets up one of the amazing pre conditions mentioned in Ezek 38:8

8 After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war, whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety.

I always find it fascinating to see a few specifics here:

The land (Israel) has recovered from war-- what war???

The people were gathered from many nations to a specific spot--- The MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL-- and that isn't the country of Israel, that is the MOUNTAINS of Israel which is largely part of the so called West Bank.

These mountains had long been desolate (Mark Twain describes it perfectly in The Innocents Abroad circa 1867) desolate, without people, desert without any vegetation except the odd cactus and without inhabitants.

Once the Jews came back the land bloomed, and so did the desire of the Arabs to steal that land for themselves- they grabbed it in 48, hung onto it in 67 despite Israel winning it back and are still there.

And Israeli Jews do NOT live there in safety. But the Bible says at the time of Ezek 38 they will.

We could be about to see it happen!!!

Could be a LOT sooner if one thinks the people dwelling in peace and safety in unwalled villages are in the Western Hemisphere (ie, U.S. and Canada)*

*Very minority view of Ezekiel
 
....Because what I believe is that God can have all of the Arab world weigh-in on ruling Gaza AND Israel is still in Abrahamic covenant with God, right? This is my point though....
Just trying to understand you

Do you mean the Arabs also have a right to the land as part of the Abrahamic land covenant? The Bible is quite clear they don't. Gaza is part of that land, so Arabs have zero right to weigh in on ruling Gaza, nor do Arabs have a right to claim Gaza as part of a 2 state solution.

Abraham is called in Genesis 12 and the land is first mentioned. Then in Gen 13 the land is mentioned again as Abram separates from Lot.

God makes the covenant in Genesis 15 and doesn't require anything of Abram. But God says it will go to Abram's descendants. In verse 13 God specifies WHICH DESCENDANTS- these are the ones who serve as slaves for 400 years in a foreign land. This proves God was NOT speaking about the Arabs who descended from Ishmael and his 6 other half brothers thru Keturah, Abraham's last wife, but only the children of Isaac and later only to Jacob.

Genesis 17:21 God establishes the covenant with ISAAC not Ishmael.

Genesis 21 God again establishes the fact the covenant and the inheritance go to ISAAC not Ishmael.

Genesis 25 explains the other sons of Abraham, but continues to explain the line of Isaac thru his sons. The prophecy given to Rebekah and the sale of the birthright.

Genesis 26 mentions the 2 wives of Esau and how his parents were upset.

Genesis 27 the blessing goes to Jacob

Genesis 28:3-4 Isaac sends Jacob off to find a wife, but in these verses Isaac explains the land goes to JACOB, the land that was promised to Abraham. In vs 13 Jacob has a vision of the ladder and God tells him the land is for him and his descendants. This happens at Bethel.

Genesis 35:11-12 Just before Rachel dies in childbirth, God appears to Jacob and says this:

11 "And God said to him, “I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants.

12 The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you.”



That land covenant is restated over and over in the Biblical account that it goes to Abraham, ISAAC and JACOB. That means that the line of succession to the rights to the land do NOT go to any of Abraham's other sons - it remained in the line of Isaac, and then Jacob.

It is not to every descendant of Abraham- nor is it to the descendants of Esau but only to the descendants of Jacob.

This is why it's not ok for the Arabs (and descendants of others like Lot who are mixed into the Jordanian Arabs) to claim the land. It is not to be given away or sold to others, it is to remain in the possession of Israel- the descendants of Jacob only.
 
It may be my fatigue- I have a hard time focusing right now but I didn't think you were joking. Even if you were, it helps to say so. I know it's easier to approach a difficult subject by making it a joke, but for those of us like me who are coping with brain fog- it helps to be clear and get to the point of what you actually mean.

One thing we CAN agree on is that Israel according to Ezek 38 does live in security- even though it's a false sense of security as Gog Magog invades. But the Bible doesn't say anywhere HOW that peaceful false security is achieved. Some say America, some say thru a false sense of security due to the IDF, others suggest it's a Psalm 83 scenario with Israel defeating their evil neighbours.

HOWEVER I hope that you really do look at what covenant means. And how that fits within God's plan for Israel. I think that might help bring you back to a more clear understanding of God's promises and plans for Israel as outlined in the Bible.

I know you've come out of Reform theology so that may still be part of how you see things.

I would love it if you'd take Andiamo's suggestion, and go thru Romans 11 prayerfully to see how this ties things together- God has a plan and purpose for the Church and for Israel.

Understanding that makes the promises to Israel make sense. The problem with Reform theology is that a lot of Reform teaching replaces Israel with the Church. They take the blessings of Israel for the church, and teach that God is done with Israel or has set them aside.

Sometimes Reform Theology expresses it as Covenantal Theology in which the Church replaces Israel in the covenants of the Bible or they see 2 main covenants- the Law and then the Church (Grace). This usually means the Church replaces Israel.
Before i could finish half of this Margery, I just have to stop and say, I really love you dear sister. It is really a treasure your expressions, heart, attitude (meaning good but also being who you are in the real), and being so open and straight. You share your real heart. And this is very precious to me. For me it's not about seeing eye to eye so much as it is how we actually see with our hearts. Just had to say that ahead of anything else. Reading the rest now.

Now that I am have finished reading I want to hug you even more dear sister. In my response I would like to start here. I don't exactly mind if when I am kidding sometimes it not be noticed. I don't mean that in any disrespectuf way. I'm not trying to trick or hide with jokes or back track to them for cover. So because your heart is so open and real and endearing, I will share this with you. There are two components to Trump and Gaza Resort. 1) It would not shock me if things get that silly. And 2) Because I think that, and because my sense upon Trump is upon the wings of an act of God, I have to not take myself so seriously. I state it clearly and plainly here. I believe Trump to be the first seal and is a part of that act of God. But wow, if I am wrong that is really quite a neck to stick out. Not so much that I care for my own neck. I'm fine with being way out there...lol. But for others, its not something kind to expect others to take my first seal view at face value. I do. But as hot as I am on that, I appreciate the heart of others to see other wise more. In part because I may be wrong. But also in part because others matter more than my views when it is a sticking out neck like view.

So since that is the case with me here, it was kind of more a joke on myself. Do I think that Trump as the first seal means a Gaza Resort? No. I mean, maybe...lol...knowing Trump. But I don't really think that is likely. But in my own Trump as first seal brain fog, I could probably believe that...lol. I could. But I don't. Because I don't take myself too seriously on that. That has no impact on how firm my belief in that is. But what matters more than that is the things I know about Christ and much clearer things about His person and gospel.

I'd have to see my original comment saying that, but the things I say are typically hyper contextual. Meaning, what I am saying in that post has much to do with what is going on with that post. For example, I would likely say "Maybe Gaza would become a resort" most likely because I am using that statement serving as a literary expletive. Like it I would say something like that to do one of two things typically. 1) Realize that what thing I am saying other than Gaza as a Resort may look that ridiculous to others. As if you could say, "I bet this guy believes Gaza will be a resort if he thinks B or C." Another reason I might use that form of expression is 2) To make the point I am saying other than that more palatable by comparison. So I guess its as much a literary device. If I can find that quote I make i'm pretty sure that is what is going on in all of that. So saying I was joking was more of a way to downplay its releveance. Now I could be mistaken because I'm not sure on the quote. I don't remember and too tired to search like that. But to say that it is a joke is true. But it was more than a joke. It likely served as a literary device moreso. But it takes a lot more words to say that then, "It was a joke." But by doing so it is not meant to run from doing that or saying that. It's just my point in the post I am confident was not so that I could say, "I think Gaza will be a resort." Its like saying the following to me: "Maybe Trump will take down globalism and fully restored global economics to great healthy effect and rid us of the central bank. Or, maybe he'll just make Gaza a Resort." Do you see in this set up of expression what the resort is doing there? I would bet money something like that is going on in that post.

. . . . .

But what I could hug you most for is your great heart toward me dear sister in the differences we might hold on Israel and the Abrahamic Covenant. I cherish your heart in expressing all of that. Really, I do. I understand why you might say that. I do. So I think it is helpful to share something further. It is true that the Reformed world is the godfather of replacement theology along side its bigger RCC big brother. I agree this is true. But something that is not clear in society as much is that Macarthur is not a typical reforemed pastor. If I had to guess, and lets say the old school understanding about how popes would use the Jesuits to infiltrate protestants (some even go as far as to believe us believing Revelation is future and not past--as preterist--would call us deceived because we believe as futurists), maybe Macarthur is the evangelical version of how to bring low hanging Reformed fruit to evangelicals. Because that is exactly what played out in par exellence. But I bring that up to stress that even though i was in the Reformed sector, Macarthur is infamous for being thought of as a leaky dispensationalist because of his stance on Israel. Unlike most reformers (including RC Sproul), Macarthur said, "The thing about dispensationalism that is correct is that if you get Israel wrong, you get everything wrong." That is paraphrased. But the only thing that makes Macarthur a dispensationalist is his stance (which is our stance) on Israel. So I did have the good graces of God to be under that teaching. I never believed in replacement theology.

So that level of thinking about Israel that is common, as you know, in the Reformed camps, was not the lane of Reformd theology I was exposed to for decades. I am grateful for that. Amen. But I don't really see the eternal Abrahamic Covenant (AC) differently than you in my estimation. The fork in the road, to me, here is not that I don't see the same covenant you might. But how evangelicalism can tend to assign a role to it I don't see as functional. And more our own ideas we put on it. For example, are the countries involved (including Rome) guilty of breeching the AC in the first century? Or centuries since? No. Not in that sense. It was what God wanted within His perameters of His covenant He graciously provided for Israel. Did Israel get their land because they honored the AC? No. Did Israel honor the AC covenant to remain protected now for almost a century? No. The reason I make a disction as I have is just that I don't believe that negotiations regarding Gaza and two-state solutions = intension to disperse Israel. Which is the warning in Joel 3:2 we use for that. Just like Israel not being a nation having any land for 2,000 years how God chose to honor the AC, so too has the two-state solution providentially been a habitual theme for Israel since they have been back in their own land.

But what tends to happen, and it is understandable why, is that we look at Israel and believe that if nations like America or Saudi Araba, or Omar, or Qatar end up imposing some form of a two-state solution, that may in some cases be to squeeze out and disperse them. Sure. I believe that sentiment exists in shackling up Gaza as we have for decades. But there are two running thesis I believe clearly in operation:

1) Israel is a powder keg in the middle east. And confusion over how to reduce tensions has been in play for a long long time. From a diplomatic standpoint, earnest efforts to use the two-state solution in Israel's well-known condition in the middle east do not amount point blank to dispering Israel
2) Israel coming into full stature (per Ez 37). That is not to say God is not affording certain protections all along the way though. And I believe it is a danger too for nations who use two-state solutions to negotiate for the purpose of dispering Israel. In that case I believe that nation would qualify for triffling with the AC.

You may disagree with that. But the reason I said it was because I believe there are many areas where the church at large might assign diplomatic intension and superimpose that on the AC as "dispersement." Is Israel were participating in honoring their side of the covenant I would have never started what I did. Because that would mean there is something God is honoring from them. And how that might look in the context of the AC, would lead me to believe the showy active heart of God toward Israel be a severer level of protection that would publically shame those countries.

I believe what we are witnessing with Israel being on the scene is God restoring Israel in part toward her eventual function within the covenant. When we can tend to confuse diplomatic supervision of Providence by God upon Israel with thinking two-state solutions = Joel 3:2, I believe those are two different things. But we tend to take Joel referencing Israel in the tribulation language with diplomacy (on some levels) during the age of grace, I believe. Margery, in closing I will say this. I understand there are definately risks for nations to monkey with any land belonging to Israel because of AC. So yeah, I hope the USA by negotiation does not stary into something outside of God's provision for Israel (provision included in their discipline), because I also believe that would be a dangerous place to be because of AC. Amen. But to me, placing what a two state solution looks like in respect of AC does not mean how we are seeing that is perfectly able to distinguish the gold from the dross regarding AC and the Lord. Is God guilty to dishonoring the AC by removing Israel from their land for 2,000 years? No. Because He owns the covenant. I believe it is of tender heart to see the AC being broken if there is an imposing of a two-state solution. But that bingo card number on that issue I don't see is for the church to discern. We don't have discussions in the church on the differences of dispersment and diplomacy. But those are different. And if it is difficult for us to recognize this distinction, I would submit it potentially is possibly even more so in its finer points. And not something necessarily the church can use as an eschatological tool (running the two-state solution as lens or filter by which to assess eschatology in attempt is the notion here). Gotta go to bed. But that would be kind of how I would lay that out. :) Blessings.
 
I hope they do.

Because if they do, then that is one step closer to Ezek 38 where it says that Israel is dwelling securely without bars or gates on the mountains of Israel.

Those Mountains are mostly in the so called West Bank area that is really the Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria. The invaders from Jordan took it in 1948 and renamed it the West Bank- referring to the fact it is west of the Jordan River which was supposed to be the dividing line. The invading Jordanians forcibly evicted Jews from their homes, lands and businesses, and took the lot.

Israel took it back in 67, only 19 years later. But instead of doing to the Jordanian invaders what they'd done to the Israelis in '48, they allowed them to stay in lands and homes that were stolen from Jewish families.

And we know how they repaid that kindness.

But over in Ezek 38 the verses specify The MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL referring to the mountainous range running north south above the banks of the Jordan. Jerusalem sits in the centre but most of those mountains are in the "west bank" area.

IF we see Israel take THAT land back permanently, and settle into that land (that belongs to them) then it sets up one of the amazing pre conditions mentioned in Ezek 38:8

8 After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war, whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety.

I always find it fascinating to see a few specifics here:

The land (Israel) has recovered from war-- what war???

The people were gathered from many nations to a specific spot--- The MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL-- and that isn't the country of Israel, that is the MOUNTAINS of Israel which is largely part of the so called West Bank.

These mountains had long been desolate (Mark Twain describes it perfectly in The Innocents Abroad circa 1867) desolate, without people, desert without any vegetation except the odd cactus and without inhabitants.

Once the Jews came back the land bloomed, and so did the desire of the Arabs to steal that land for themselves- they grabbed it in 48, hung onto it in 67 despite Israel winning it back and are still there.

And Israeli Jews do NOT live there in safety. But the Bible says at the time of Ezek 38 they will.

We could be about to see it happen!!!
This is SO COOL.
 
I think I understand what you are saying and why that would be a concern.
We really need to stick with scripture and get our understanding of what it’s saying at its face value.
Now to me, it’s blatantly obvious reading the scripture at face value, that the covenant still stands whether Israel is in right relationship or not. And it sounds like you agree with this.
Outside of scripture I guess what is going on is subject to our own opinions and we will just wait and see what happens.
Yes exactly. This is what i am saying. I apologize to the forum for the confusion. Because saying that Israel has 0 covenant exegetically is something I demonstrated in Jesus saying "You won't see me until you proclaim I come in the name of the Lord" paraphrased. So in that sense Israel won't be actively practicing the Abrahamc Covenant until then. Although the 144 k are given a preemptive bypass on that, generally it is true that Israel is not covenanting with God in a practical sense, exegetically even...because of what Jesus said. But I understand that is not a way most believers who see Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant process like. And I totally get that it can be seen, what I am saying, as: Israel is not under the Abrahamic Covenant anymore." Which is not what I meant. But it is totally reasonable to think I might. I understand that. So I asked for forgiveness for that.

But it is not that I did not mean in part to state it that way. Not to cause an upstart, ruckus, or provoke people. I mean I can understand how that might. But that was not my intentions. My intension was merely to stimulate thought. The one you posted here. :) So thanks. YES!!! It worked. Lol. Sort of. But dear sister, even more though. Is it not very automatic that we would say: If some country tries to divide up the land for Palestine that is going against the Abrahamic Covenant? We do do that.

On its face I am not saying that is absolutely wrong. For where it applies however God might see that, okay. Yeah. For sure. It does. And if America does that and God sees it like that, we are in trouble just as any people would be. But the church does not know exactly where that line is, in my estimation. So in light of that we kind of blanket the whole thing. And then build summaries on what that means. Look, if God does not consider nations trying to established peace in the middle east while Israel is in her hardened state, it is totally reasonable to consider God would not see that as a violation of Joel 3:2. But we are not God. So in a way we cannot say totally yes, or totally no. But that is not what the generic assumptions seem to be. Instead we just see that any diplomatic effort we just assign to Joel 3:2. But if God is hardening Israel now partially, it is reasonable to consider that that sort of phenomena (a two-state solution) could be a form of God discipling Israel in their hardened unbelief. We just don't know. But we offer it as though we might. And further, there are some that build entire blueprints of this notion and that notion. Becoming the escatological shot callers for exactly what God is doing in respect to the Abrahamic Covenent. As if we knew.

We might have some idea. But we are not God. So yeah, to the extent we might get lost in that, since it is a thing, I stated it the way I did. As a big reminder that Israel is not seeking after God. That is a MASSIVE factor today, we just sweep under the carpet and say: On lets look at that nation as this or that because of the two-state solution. My goodness, with America and all our problems which are massive, we are still the stellar currency world standard and still number one super power after decades of two-state salutioning Israel. One would think by now America to be evaporated if God held every account of diplomatic idiocy on our part as challenging Joel 3.2. But the church has not been short of supply overture there. And look, end times and eschatology is nuanced enough with out adding that layer. At least that is my understanding. So its not like there is no reason why I phrased it as I did. Because shot calling is a huge concern in our era, is it not? In that humble respect, I am just noting it would be good not to run into the next county with our views...since it is hard enough making sense of what actually is literally happening in front of us.

One last comment on this. America would be a prime example of this. Yet she seems to be missed in consideration as far as eschatology and Joel 3:2 go with the church. What I mean is that America has been two-state solutioning Israel for decades as a diplomatic effort in part. We certainly are not trying to disperse her. But we are deceived of course by other alluring Arab influences in the middle east, a given. But even with all of our involvement, instead of seeing America crushed under the angry hand of God what we see in sayings like: "Is it the golden age upon us?" Or "This is just a repreive." In any event even if a reprieve -- that is language out of the context of blessing not cursing. So after decades of violating Joel 3:2 America is blessed? Why would God do that? lol. Of course many might think Trump to be a curse. Understood. I would agree in part in the sense that I believe Trump is judgement. But not in the way the church would typically apply that. But that is my view of course. Bottom line in what I am saying is that Amercia seems blessed for having violated Joel 3:2 all over the place. The reason? I believe because it doesn't violate Joel 3:2. I hope not to argue whether that is true or not in the forum in general. It's not going to be settled here. Amen. I am just making reference of that in the sense that Providence seems to indicate the church at times can run into the next county with our views (including me--which is why I am here to be kept on a leash...lol). Blessings.
 
Just trying to understand you

Do you mean the Arabs also have a right to the land as part of the Abrahamic land covenant? The Bible is quite clear they don't. Gaza is part of that land, so Arabs have zero right to weigh in on ruling Gaza, nor do Arabs have a right to claim Gaza as part of a 2 state solution.

Abraham is called in Genesis 12 and the land is first mentioned. Then in Gen 13 the land is mentioned again as Abram separates from Lot.

God makes the covenant in Genesis 15 and doesn't require anything of Abram. But God says it will go to Abram's descendants. In verse 13 God specifies WHICH DESCENDANTS- these are the ones who serve as slaves for 400 years in a foreign land. This proves God was NOT speaking about the Arabs who descended from Ishmael and his 6 other half brothers thru Keturah, Abraham's last wife, but only the children of Isaac and later only to Jacob.

Genesis 17:21 God establishes the covenant with ISAAC not Ishmael.

Genesis 21 God again establishes the fact the covenant and the inheritance go to ISAAC not Ishmael.

Genesis 25 explains the other sons of Abraham, but continues to explain the line of Isaac thru his sons. The prophecy given to Rebekah and the sale of the birthright.

Genesis 26 mentions the 2 wives of Esau and how his parents were upset.

Genesis 27 the blessing goes to Jacob

Genesis 28:3-4 Isaac sends Jacob off to find a wife, but in these verses Isaac explains the land goes to JACOB, the land that was promised to Abraham. In vs 13 Jacob has a vision of the ladder and God tells him the land is for him and his descendants. This happens at Bethel.

Genesis 35:11-12 Just before Rachel dies in childbirth, God appears to Jacob and says this:

11 "And God said to him, “I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will be among your descendants.

12 The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I also give to you, and I will give this land to your descendants after you.”



That land covenant is restated over and over in the Biblical account that it goes to Abraham, ISAAC and JACOB. That means that the line of succession to the rights to the land do NOT go to any of Abraham's other sons - it remained in the line of Isaac, and then Jacob.

It is not to every descendant of Abraham- nor is it to the descendants of Esau but only to the descendants of Jacob.

This is why it's not ok for the Arabs (and descendants of others like Lot who are mixed into the Jordanian Arabs) to claim the land. It is not to be given away or sold to others, it is to remain in the possession of Israel- the descendants of Jacob only.
Thanks for asking Margery. I appreciate that dear sister. So my views on the Abraham Accords are probably a bit to out there perhaps for our forum but I will give the gist at the end. That is different that what you are asking. But regarding the Arab world and land rights of Israel I would say do not exist. In no wise do I believe Arabs has a claim on said Palestine. That is a make believe scenario. With lots of history...lol. But the bottom line is, no, I don't see the Arab world having any given rights by God to the land the Israel. Nor do I believe that in any way do the Arabs have an Abrahamic Covenant in the sense Israel does. And eternal one. The Arab world does not have that.

So what I am not saying is that the Arabs have a right to occupy parts of Israel. That is not true at all. My point about a two-state solution has nothing, in my view, to do with the Arab world. I just bring that up in the sense of it possibly being a thorn in Israel's side the Lord may use providing context. Even though God has blessed them with a return, He is not offering them cartblonche access to Him and everything. So I think the two-state solution has been healthy for them in part to remain somewhat humble to the degree they might in hardened unbelief. Amen.

I just mean mainly that when we see two-state solution, what should be more likely at the forefront of our thinking, in my estimation, is how that might relate to God's dealing with them. Just as much as when Trump affirmed Jerusalem for them. So like looking at Israel to see where God is with all that I think is more helpful than outlining how nations involved in a two-state solution might be the devil to keep an eye on for eschatology. Because at the end of the day, we don't know if God is using two-state solutions for Israel's discipline and His architecture in eschatology. Which leads me now to the Abraham Accords.

ABRAHAM ACCORDS SCENARIO IN THAT
Ishmael was born of Abraham. God gave Hagar and Ishmael blessings to. But not an eternal one. I suppose one way to look at the Ishmeal blessing is this: If what we see in the middle east -- a massive land grab all around Israel (a tiny little speck of land in the midst of Arab giants) is indication of what blessing comes from Abarham, my goodness, seeing the size and scope of the Arab people in the world today is massive. A temporal extension of God's blessing Ishmael because of coming from Abraham. So that is one way to consider how the other side of that equation must look in Christendom...and her true members over time.

When we see the Abraham Accords we rightly see it bizarre. Like, wow, that is so not right. From a Western Christian perspective this is not invalided. For this does go against the grain of the true unique way in which God used Abraham. Certainly not to start multiple religions around him. So to see the Abraham Accords as a blurring of the clarity of Abraham's value in true scripture, amen. It is understandable.

It is even understandable to an extent we might see it as the covenant the AC strengthens. For it looks like it could be something like that. But in our so doing the difficulty I have with some of those sermising is not in the ones just explained. But in where I suppose we allow it to just lay on the carpet like that. Because the Western Christian view is not the only view that might have weight in assessing the Arabram Accords. To me, they are still a testimony of the one and true God. But perhaps to the Arab world. Now this is where we may differ in consideration. Because I believe that the Abraham Accords exist as a testimony of God's faithfulness through Abrham to the lost Arab world days before the tribulation they will find themselves in. To me it is not primirly a covenant the AC might strengthen. Although down the road it might. But rather in our age of grace, where we are, where the AC has not place officially in office, to me, it means something like helping someone to get one step closer to Christ.

Not that the Abraham Accords attest to Christ or the true gospel. But to a fallen stubborn Arab world, it does testify to God's faithfulness to Ishmael through Abraham. That is God's testimony regardless. To the extent this can be helpful to Arabs, it can. This is a time when many Arabs are coming to Chist. Are they coming because of the Abraham Arccords...lol...probably not. But they are coming. So we have the drawing of His spirit toward them with also an external emblem of this occurance upon such proportion to the Arab world (for the number coming to Him from that people is staggering in number and has been reported from many different sources). So in a way, the Abraham Accords can attest to an ancient blessing on Ishmael for the Arab world to consider. As well as a monument arising in the middel east during a period where God's Spirit is hyper active also in winning many Muslims to Christ. Off the charts numbers, from what I understand.

So in that sense to see mostly a covenant the AC might strengthen I believe is somewhat to limit what emblamtic nature the Abraham Accords also provide in our day. If nothing else, it has arisen along side God massively moving within their world. I don't think that is a coinsidence. Beyond that too is the testimony it also can be for Israel. I believe it offers them naturalization with her Arab neighbors to build her prosperity and safety leading to Ez 38. So in that sense, I am not sure what the Abraham Accords will look like after Ez 38. But they do seem to not just be an emblem of Arab world salvation from our loving Father. They also appear to be what will equip Israel economically taking it to a whole new level in the middle east.

So when I think of the Abraham Accords I don't focus primarily on the level of deception it can represent. Because it does represent on some significant level a blurring of biblical clarity, amen. We can camp there. Dig out heels in and say: wicked, wicked, wicked. Or we could see its utility in end times as a vehicle also for Israel's properity for the very fulfillment of scripture. Which looks like that is exactly what that is. We will have to see. But if it ends up being that it is much more about Israel's blessing per prophecy than, for our age of grace time, it is about a covenant the AC strengthens. Yet evangelicalism is not exactly there yet. But you recent account of Jan Markels latest consideration invite massive possibility in that direction, no? I don't say that evangelicalism isn't there yet with an attitude. I don't feel as though I have arrived or anything...lol. It could be that in the end my views really suck and end up proving the Luciferian Light concern is more real. I doubt that a lot. But I don't ommit the possibility. I just believe the case for my view and 10 times more likely. Maybe 100x even. But still we don't yet know. And as for me, I have had some deep schooling in Ez 38. Not that I myself am schooled. But by those who are very fascinated with it to a very great degree see its forming far deeper than myself or evangelicalism. So in the event it goes that way, it would seem that Ez 38 unfolding right beneath our fit is the path. And that has not been the focus of evangelicalism as much as the beast system, Daniel, and Revealtion have been for us. Those areas of focus help. Amen. But I believe the overarching trajectory is Ez 38. And we really have not been tracking as much in that direction. If we had, America being powerful to help Israel could have been a no-brainer. But that is something we seem to have difficulty waking up to. If indeed it is the way things go.

I understand this difficulty because watchers don't know what to do with America not responding in Ez 38 if we are powerful. But prophecy is not solved by the opinions the church. It is solved by watching from a wide range of open consideration. On the America is not in the Ez 38 scenario front, I believe we have opinionized ourselves into believing our conclusions about Ez 38 and America are canon. And now, it is likely we are being shown they are opinion, and not canon. For the record, I just see Ez 38 as a specialized snapshot God shows us. Its not everything all over the world. Nor is it necessarily everything in the middle east. The simple answer regarding America could be a) LIke Israel on 10-7, we did not have enough Intel to herpahs know ahead of time for various reasons (depending on your view of why Israel may or may not have known). And b) If we were to respond, we might take days to consider the best way to respond. And before we do, God intervenes. It could be just that simple. But that thought seemed to have never occurred much if at all in the watcher community. So its is just things like this in which I would mean, "yet." As it it has not occured to evangelicalism yet. If that makes sense? Blessings.

I hope this is helpful in answering your questions. Blessings dear sister.
 
Back
Top