Yes, willingness and understanding how to keep His commanments. It seem eay to hide ourselves because we are far away from certain problems.

It takes patience - and endurance. Praying for progress, even if it seems slow in being fulfilled.

Just wondering how your comments fit in the flow of the conversation.
Do you believe Ezekiel's temple will yet be built over in Jerusalem?
Or are you referring to something earlier in the discussion?

No, I was going back to the original question

Yes, I was coming back to say that what Elle suggests is not true.

Of course both Israel and Judah had already failed. They failed multiple times. But in Ezekiel, that was prophesied in the 570's. BC! Jerusalem wasn't left desolate until 70 AD! They failed one final time.

So why Elle was saying it means something to our future rather than their future, that definitely makes no SENSE.


Without knowing how she defines prophecy, there's other places showing it's conditional.

Jer 18:7 "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,
8 "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
9 "And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,
10 "if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Then there's Jonah.

Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

But in 40 days Nineveh was not destroyed because they repented. Jonah even expected it or at least worried they might and the Lord relent. So shall we pluck up that 40 days out of context and insert it into the future at a time period of our choosing?

Yet 40 days and something will happen in the U.S.
It's 'biblical', you know.

Blessings kland,

You wrote; "Of course both Israel and Judah had already failed. They failed multiple times. But in Ezekiel, that was prophesied in the 570's. BC! Jerusalem wasn't left desolate until 70 AD! They failed one final time." (bold emphasis mine)

When Jesus made that statement in Matthew 23 it was 31 AD. Other than that your post was good, some prophecies are conditional.

Guess the question would be was Jerusalem left desolate in 31 AD or 70 AD. I looked at it as being 'desolate' in 70, but it was 'left' in 31 AD.

(I had thought it was something like 33 AD?)

Jerusalem, as a nation wasn't left desolate in 31 AD. The temple services had expired then, but the nation's probation still lingered.

After all -- the apostles were commissioned to preach FIRST to the Jews. Why? Because a lot of the people didn't understand the Messiah's mission and as Peter and the other apostles explained comparing scripture with Christ's life, thousands of Jews and even quite a number of Pharisees believed and were baptized. (Read Acts chapters 1-4) Multitudes believed!

34 AD we see the leadership in Jerusalem fully committing themselves to exterminate the Christian Jews. This marks the beginning of their end. The stoning of Stephen after his strong appeal to them is a key point in time. The Jewish leaders authorized the death of many and most of the rest of the Jewish Christians fled out to other places, till only a few were left in Jerusalem. Yet the apostles still had their "headquarters" in Jerusalem even as late as 50 AD and beyond.

When the Romans first besieged Jerusalem in 66 AD and then withdrew for a short time, it was a sign for all Christians to flee Jerusalem. No Christian Jews perished when the city fell in 70 AD.


(See DA 630)

Aren't we going way off topic since page 8? I would like to comment, but in apropriate discussion as what I will say will probably add a few more pages.

Well, if we are going off topic it is because you said,

"We got deviated because

-My Point : Ezekiel 44-48 (which is futur) shows feasts and sacrifices keeping; thus Feasts and sacrifice still relevant.

-Your objection: Ezkiel 44-48 was conditional ....THUS that prophecy is not valid because Israel had failed.

-Your objection MAKES NO SENCE : because both Israel and Judah had already failed and were already deported BEFORE that prophecies was given. dunno

Since your point makes no sense, then my point still stand.
"

Which I objected to. Which then we showed how what you attempted to say simply was not true.

Either Ez 44-48 is your point or it is not. If it IS your point, it has been shown to be invalid. It may not be wise to pull a Green on us by saying it's off topic when people object to your point.

Often discussion go off topic to clarify an issue. That's just normal. If the "off topic" cannot be resolve in a page or two, than it's better to start another topic and resolve that question under an appropriate discussion title. Let's give respect to Daryl and the moderators by being responsible to do what is right and avoiding them to do a bunch of work to transfer pages of posts to another topic. I'm willing to continue this off topic in another appropriate topic.



I have made many other points in this discussion. It was Alchemy who brought up futur prophecies in relation to feasts:

He was surprised I mentioned Ez 44-48 and not Isa 66. But there's other prophecies that talk about the feast in a futuristic manner.

But this treating prophecies as conditional is the same mentality as seeing the laws as irrelenat and nailing them to the cross. I see this as Man setting himself up to be able to pick and choose which one he wants to believe or keep. That's typical and always has been so. I personally don't believe in cherry picking the "Word of God" whether in the laws or in prophecies. But that's is my personal conviction.

So to discuss about if prophecies are conditional or not is clearly going to take many pages of discussion to resolve this.

I'm not pulling a "green"(whatever that means) on you. I'm just realistic knowing we are going into pages of posts. I do have much scriptures to cover to address this off topic question.