I was speaking in the sense of God's plan for human history. There was a time that God dealt with mankind through Israel, His chosen people, who were tasked to preserve and present the gospel to the other nations. They failed. Now that task has been given to Gentiles. That doesn't mean that Israel is "off the map", but God's plan is no longer through them.
The task has not been taken away from the Jews, but away from the Jewish *nation.* Jews are still part of the Church today when they accept their Messiah Jesus. There has always been a remnant of Jews in the Church. So you can't say the Gospel has been given exclusively to the Gentiles, and not to the Jews!
The fact that many countries of the world aren't Christian doesn't mean that they live in a separate "dispensation" from the Church Age! China isn't Christian and it is in the same dispensation as the Church Age!
It is no different with Israel. Israel is no longer a nation of God, and is certainly not a Christian nation. But it is still in the dispensation of the Church Age! That's the problem with Dispensationalism--it is extremely confusing, and really isn't even true. It is, at best, half true, and that isn't close enough.
Jesus will return at the 2nd Advent in Israel. Obviously He will set up His Millennial kingdom in Israel. Can't imagine anywhere else.
The Scriptures say that Jesus will come back in the same way he left. He will come back to Israel, as promised, to restore that nation to godliness. But I believe he is also coming back for the world, to restore Christian nations. In the OT the focus was on Israel exclusively, and those promises have not gone away. But in the NT God's promises are extended to Christian nations. Not just Israel will be restored in the Millennial, even though the OT prophets focused on Israel at a time when only Israel was living for God.
I do believe Paul was removing racial distinctions in his writings. The Jews were extremely biased (racists) towards Gentiles. Paul intended to remove that bias.
We have to be clear what we're talking about, whether "removing bias" or "removing racial distinctions?" As I said, the qualification for Salvation was said not to be race-based, by Paul. Paul thus removed "racial bias." But he did *not* remove racial distincitons. He continued to state the difference between racial groups, though not with respect to Salvation. He identified the Jews and the Greeks, just as we would differentiate Germans, Latinos, and Chinese today.
As I noted before about the fact that all the building materials for another temple are already in place! They surely expect to build another temple. I think they are waiting for some special "sign" or something. I've heard about a "red heifer" and when they have one, they'll start building. The other issue is where to build. Dome of the Rock is where they want to, but of course, they will need permission from the Arabs.
We've covered this already. Yes, some Jews have been laying plans for a restoration of the Law for decades. It doesn't seem possible to me. There are a lot of secret religious organizations who think they are controlling world events. It's not real. Again, a rebuilt Jewish temple would disallow any ruler to take up residence there!
Since the beast, aka a/c, will be indwelt by Satan himself, who has the biggest God-complex of any creature in the universe, of course it makes sense that this beast would claim to be God himself and enter the temple to make that announcement. I don't care that Antiochus IV did that in 70 AD. I makes total sense to me that the beast will do the same.
Antiochus 4 did *not* take up residence in the temple, nor make it his throne room. And yet Paul is saying just that, that Antichrist will take up residence *in the temple,* proclaiming himself Deity. That just can't happen with a reconstructed OT temple! The second the Antichrist removes the ark of the covenant it ceases to be a Jewish temple. But I think Paul is talking about a metaphorical declaration, that Antichrist is assuming a place in God's heavenly temple.
Been fun discussing this with you.
Yes, we agree on some important things, and these are just conversation pieces. I'm not signing off on any of it in blood!