How do we get that understanding?
Watching TV preachers? Or by seriously studying all of the Bible prophets and gaining a picture of what must happen before Jesus Returns.
I'm fairly sure I have never advocated watching TV preachers to gain our understanding. In fact, I'm fairly sure I've never watched a TV preacher myself.
So, I think your assumption that any opinion that differs from your own is gained that way rather than by careful study of the scriptures is not a great place to be starting from.
It is clear from Revelation 12:6-17, that the Christians will be living in the holy Land. This truth is well prophesied in the OT and Paul mentions it in Romans 9:24-26, how the Lord's Christian people will be named sons of the Living God in the very land the ancient Israelites were rejected.
Rev 12....in a book that is full of symbols, and a chapter that is by far the easiest to see that it is full of symbols (a giant woman giving birth among the stars!?), you insist that verse 6 must be saying that this 'woman' who flees into the wilderness
must be Christians fleeing to the holy land? It could just as easily, and I would argue is more likely to be, saying that the 'wilderness' is the whole of this world, of which we are not citizens but strangers, but as we move through it, we are indeed protected by our Lord and Saviour, who has promised that 'not a hair on our head will perish'. This does not give us guaruntee of phsyical protection, but spiritual protection. And this lines up with many scriptures; where we see persecution of believers and how even in that, they are triumphing over their enemies. We are like our Lord in that way.
And Paul's reference to "that place" in Romans 9:24-26? Once again, too much emphesis is being placed upon a bit of dirt, rather than the spiritual importance behind the
event. If we look back at Hosea, where Paul is quoting this from, we see that it is speaking of the promises of God to the nation of Israel at Sinai. Sinai, depending on who you talk to, is held to be outside of Israel proper. So, it can't really be talking about a piece of ground. "That place", therefore is not a geographical reference but a reference
to the event when God and his people bonded at Sinai. Which was a place of repentance and acknowledgement.
In Paul we can see that he is speaking of the time when the Gentiles themselves come to the true God of scripture in repentence of their sin, and acknowledgement of his truth.
In other words; there is no legitimate way these texts point to a "must" in regards to people coming together at the end to dwell in the land. It doesn't state it outright, and there are other, very good exegetical ways to understand the texts that don't lead us there.
Most people just cannot see; how through Jesus, we Christians have inherited all of God's promises, made to ancient Israel. 2 Corinthians 1:20
Well...here I'd have to both agree, and disagree with you. Yes, many Christians don't seem to grasp that. In fact, they tend to look at those who do as anti-semites, even though every Jew who believes in Christ keeps his inheritance as well. And it's not like where making up the rules here, we're just saying what the bible does. New Covenant = Jesus. No Jesus = no promises, no matter who your fore fathers were.
However, I disagree with you when you...and correct me if I'm wrong...say that these promises we inherit, only bring us to the holy land. When Jesus took the gospel 'global', for want of a better word, so also went the promises. Christ is heir to the whole world, he is above all rule and authority and all people. When he comes again, those who follow him will gain inheritance to all the world, not just Israel.
Soon all of the Middle East area will be cleared and cleansed. Man cannot resolve the chronic situation there. THEN, after the Day of cloud and darkness, the Lord will motivate His faithful people to migrate to the holy Land. Ezekiel 34:11-16 and Isaiah 66:20, Psalms 107 describe it.
Here's the thing: I think it becomes a deep, hermeneutical error to base one's doctrines on the OT. The bible has been revealed to us progressively, which means that it should be the New shedidng light on the Old, not the other way around. On the Mount of Transfiguration, God tells the Disciples: 'this is my Son,
listen to him'. Which means that the vast majority of our understandings need to come from the teachings of Christ and how he viewed certain subjects. And within the NT, specifically the didactic books, Christ covers enough of these subjects for us to clearly understand them, and also understand how we should be regarding the OT. So, going back to the OT and deciding that just because it reads a certain way, sequence or manner, and then trying to impose it on the NT even though the NT would, in fact, contradict it, is just not going to fly with me. Sorry.