Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Might as well be stacked with them, since I've heard their followers teach that false doctrine of Jesus having fulfilled the 70th week of Daniel.

LOL. Should we say that you might as well be stacked with them as well since they believe in a post-trib rapture? Stop the nonsense already, Davy. You just continue to make a fool of yourself with these kinds of comments.

Who am I? I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Do you think people like Jeff and I are not disciples of Jesus Christ?

Thus I listen to Him in His Word. I am non-denominational, but I was raised in a mainstream Christian Church. They held to men's seminary doctrines of false Preterism, which I do not keep.

People like Jeff and I do not base our beliefs on seminary doctrines, either. If we happen to agree with what those teach on some things, so be it. We are not preterists, though. We do not agree with how preterists interpret much of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation. Because we do agree with a bit of what they believe does not make us one of them.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Oh, really? Is that why I'm here discussing His word with people? Because I don't care what it says? Any other ridiculously immature comments you'd like to make?

Your not discussing the word.

If you were discussing the word. you would se it for what it says

And, yet, you can't come anywhere near supporting that claim.

Thats only becausae your blinded by your belief system.

Don;t blame me because I just take it for the way it is written and do not try to force something into it

LOL. Says the guy who foolishly claims that I don't care what the Word says. I would never say that about you because that is foolish and judgmental like a child would do. Everyone here cares about the Word says, but some here, like you, are mistaken about what the Word says.

If you think everyone here cares for what the word says, Its worse than i thought

What did I make up? Nothing. Interpreting something differently than you is not making things up. Making things up is when someone denies what the word "after" means and tries to say that the Messiah would be cut off at the end of the 69th week instead of after the 69th week ended.

This goes far beyond interpretation my friend.

Its one thing to interpret a word. its far different to make things that are not there appear out of no where

Right. It's about what the Messiah would do for Daniel's people and city. As I already pointed out.

Nope it is not, But thanks again for proving my point

Daniel did not ask for messiah to save the people from their sin.

Your reading Gods answer to daniels prayer.. yet totally ignore what Daniel prayed about.

Pathetic. The prophecy is all about the Messiah. It is unbelievable to me to see any Christian not recognize that. Terrible. Please ask God for wisdom about this (James 1:5-7).

Yeah, it is pathetic, how can I even conisder what you say when you keep saying things like this?

Its about the children of Israel and lev 26 and their diaspora because of her sin.

Daniel 9:24-27 is its own prophecy.

It is Gods answer to Daniel 9 : 1 - 24

Its more than just prophesy.

I will. I certainly don't need your permission.

Your right, Continue in unbelief.. You do not need my permission

He was not saying that all of the nation of Israel would be saved at some point in the future. He was saying that all of Israel would be saved in the manner prophesied in Isaiah 59:20-21, which he referenced and paraphrased.

No,

He said they are blinded in part UNTIL a time in the future

Rom 11:
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

God warned gentile believers such as you and me not to be wise in our own opinion. The fact that Israel us blinded in part until the fullness of the gentiles.

Then what happen? All Israel will be saved.

This is future.. Because neither the time of the gentile. nor the repentance of All Israel has occurred yet

Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written: “The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

Has he turned the ungodliness away from Jacob yet?

Of course not.. They are still in sin.. They are still enemies concerning the gospel.

Your own passage refutes what you are trying to tell me

What other covenant beside the new covenant is the one by which people's sins are taken away? There is none.

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

People have been getting saved under the new covenant for almost 2,000 years now. So, what Paul was describing was the way in which all Israel was being saved and how all Israel will be saved going forward. Eventually, all Israel from all-time will be saved by way of the new covenant of Christ's shed blood.

But, the Israel Paul was talking about there was not the nation of Israel, but rather Spiritual Israel (the Israel of God - Gal 6:15-16).

Yet he differentiated between saves Israel (the natural branch) and saved gentiles (the unnatural branch) and told the saved gentiles to not boast.

Yet here you are boasting, doing the very thing Paul told you not to do

He described Spiritual Israel here:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Being part of Spiritual Israel has nothing to do with being physically descended from Israel or Abraham, but rather consists of the spiritual children of Abraham. The spiritual children of God. The spiritual children of the promise. All believers, whether Jew or Gentile, fit that description (see Galatians 3:26-29).

I am a saved gentile. I am not spiritual Israel.

But thank you.

and yes, the covenant in Romans 9 is not the same covenant spoken of in romans 11. they are two seperate covenants

When Abraham indicated that Spiritual Israel are those who a reckoned "through Isaac", he was talking about this:

Galatians 4:25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Do you see what I did here? I'm interpreting scripture with scripture. I'm allowing other scripture to dictate what Paul was talking about in Romans 11. You are not doing that. Your interpretation contradicts other scripture.

lol.. Whatever

You can make baseless accusations like this all you want, but they mean nothing. One of us is using scripture to interpret scripture and one of us is just interpreting scriptures in isolation without taking any other scriptures into consideration and without any care if you are contradicting other scripture or not.

Well it certainly is not you

You pick and chose verses you claim support you. when they do not..

So, you are equating 1000 years with EVERLASTING righteousness? I think you need to learn what everlasting means.

No,

I am equating with the fact when Israel repents *your people) they will never sin again. Just like the prophet said.

THAT is everlasting righteousness. and that is forever.
Dude I am done..

I keep leaving this nonsensical argument, yet you keep pushing

You have context completely out of wack. and your trying to make a non salvic covenant into a salvic. while at the same time, in doing so. declaring God does not keep his promises..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It amuses me that you can't see what he is actually saying, as a few others have said the same as well. He is not saying that Jesus died some time after the 69th week ended. He is saying that Jesus died at the end of the 69 weeks (placing His death within the 69th week at the very end of it) and that saying He died after the 69 weeks is a way of saying the same thing (which it is not). Just ask him and he will confirm that.

I know how to read
He said,. Jesus died AFTER the 69th week.

Just like I did.

the 69th week ended when Jesus entered jerusalem just like the prophet said he would

he died the following weekend.

You can not even admit when you have made a mistake. again, how should we trust you with Gods word?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Amen! Well said, Jeff.

Sad.

Dan 9 is not about that.

but neither of you will read the first 23 verses to see how true this is. then pat each other on the back.

what a joke.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your not discussing the word.

If you were discussing the word. you would se it for what it says

LOL. So, in your warped view, no one can discuss the Word unless they agree with you. Okay then! LOL.

He said they are blinded in part UNTIL a time in the future

Rom 11:
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

I didn't say otherwise. But, does that mean when they are no longer blinded in part that they are not blinded at all and they all become saved? That is your assumption, but that can't be what it means. It doesn't make sense to think that every single one of them would decide to repent and put their faith in Christ. Salvation doesn't work that way. Instead, we should understand that Paul was talking about the Israel he referenced in Romans 9:6-8 that he contrasted with the nation of Israel that only consists of the spiritual children of God, spiritual children of promise and spiritual children of Abraham and has nothing to do with physical nationality.

Has he turned the ungodliness away from Jacob yet?

Of course not.. They are still in sin.. They are still enemies concerning the gospel.

Scripture says He did. And some of them did turn away from ungodliness. There were 3,000 of them who turned away from ungodliness and were saved on the day of Pentecost alone.

Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

That not all of them turned to ungodliness does not determine whether or not He has turned ungodliness away from Jacob. He did so by dying for their sins. What else does He need to do besides that to turn them away from ungodliness? Nothing! It is finished! He did at all already for them. Since then it's up to each individual to decide to repent and have faith in Him or not.

Yet he differentiated between saves Israel (the natural branch) and saved gentiles (the unnatural branch) and told the saved gentiles to not boast.

He only differentiated between them to show that they had been brought together as one. You still have them separated! You doctrine contradicts much scripture.

Yet here you are boasting, doing the very thing Paul told you not to do

No, I'm not. Your false accusations do nothing but reveal what kind of person you are.

and yes, the covenant in Romans 9 is not the same covenant spoken of in romans 11. they are two seperate covenants

What covenant, besides the new covenant established by the blood of Christ, provides for the forgiveness of sins?

No,

I am equating with the fact when Israel repents *your people) they will never sin again. Just like the prophet said.

THAT is everlasting righteousness. and that is forever.

You are saying that you believe no mortal Israelite will sin during the supposed future thousand years? Will Romans 3:23 no longer be true at that point?

Dude I am done..

That's good news. I want you to be done with your false teaching.

I keep leaving this nonsensical argument, yet you keep pushing

You have context completely out of wack. and your trying to make a non salvic covenant into a salvic. while at the same time, in doing so. declaring God does not keep his promises..

Which covenant are you referring to?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I know how to read
He said,. Jesus died AFTER the 69th week.

Just like I did.

the 69th week ended when Jesus entered jerusalem just like the prophet said he would

he died the following weekend.

You can not even admit when you have made a mistake. again, how should we trust you with Gods word?

I know what he believes from previous discussions, unlike you, so that's how I know he means that Jesus died at the end of the 69th week and not after the 69th week.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Sad.

Dan 9 is not about that.

but neither of you will read the first 23 verses to see how true this is. then pat each other on the back.

what a joke.

It's sad how jealous you are. What a joke, indeed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

LOL. So, in your warped view, no one can discuss the Word unless they agree with you. Okay then! LOL.

I did not say that, Don;t put words in my mouth

I didn't say otherwise.

You said it does not mean they are blinded until a certain time or something to that affect. Your backtracking now>

But, does that mean when they are no longer blinded in part that they are not blinded at all and they all become saved?

Thats what Paul said

Should we not take paul at his word? Or make him mean something else? Your not arguing with me your arguing with Paul

That is your assumption, but that can't be what it means. It doesn't make sense to think that every single one of them would decide to repent and put their faith in Christ.

So Paul does not know what he is talking about? I think it makes perfecty sense. if for nothing else. Paul said it would happen.

Salvation doesn't work that way.

So salvation does not work if one repents and recieves Christ they may not be saved?

What is your gospel?

Instead, we should understand that Paul was talking about the Israel he referenced in Romans 9:6-8 that he contrasted with the nation of Israel that only consists of the spiritual children of God, spiritual children of promise and spiritual children of Abraham and has nothing to do with physical nationality.

No we should not. Because the Israel he is talking about in Romans 11 is not in the context of that Israel.

Scripture says He did. And some of them did turn away from ungodliness. There were 3,000 of them who turned away from ungodliness and were saved on the day of Pentecost alone.

Not sure what that has to do with What Paul said would happen in a future date

Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

That not all of them turned to ungodliness does not determine whether or not He has turned ungodliness away from Jacob. He did so by dying for their sins. What else does He need to do besides that to turn them away from ungodliness? Nothing! It is finished! He did at all already for them. Since then it's up to each individual to decide to repent and have faith in Him or not.

Lets put it this way.

when Jacob is no longer living in sin, When they are no longer enemies concerning the gospel. We will know the prophecy has come true. Thats how prophecy works

God (or a prophet) says something will happen

it happens.

He only differentiated between them to show that they had been brought together as one. You still have them separated! You doctrine contradicts much scripture.

Paul seperated them to show the differences between the two

If Israel is now only spiritual israel. Then there is no need to seperate them. because they are all the same

Paul seperated them. NOT ME

No, I'm not. Your false accusations do nothing but reveal what kind of person you are.

Your doing exactly what I said you are doing. Yet you are denying it..And your claiming I am a bad person?

What covenant, besides the new covenant established by the blood of Christ, provides for the forgiveness of sins?

The covenant concerning Israel. that paul is talking about. has nothing to do with anyone being saved.

That why he said THEY (Israel proper) are enemies concerning the gospel. But beloved concerning the promises. The promises of God are irrevocable. God established a covenant wiht their fathers with abraham Issac and Jacob, That covenant stands today. With you want it to or not does not make it null and void

You are saying that you believe no mortal Israelite will sin during the supposed future thousand years? Will Romans 3:23 no longer be true at that point?

I never said that.

Again WHAT WAS THER SIN?

It is obvious that you have not studied why they were under babylon rule and why their nation and city was destroyed and why they were and still are scattered throughout the world.

If you do not understand that, You can never understand my belief or the prophecy of Daniel

That's good news. I want you to be done with your false teaching.

I want to be done with your false teaching. I want God proclaimed a God who says things happen thousands of years in advance, and they happen. As he said.

And I want his reputation as a God who keeps his promises put back in order. not destroyed like your doing

Which covenant are you referring to?

Look back to Gen 12, then go to Gen 15 then go to Gen 17.

Look at the covenant given to one seed of Abraham. The covenant reconfirmed with Isaac and then reconfirmed again with Jacob and his 12 sons, and the one Paul is speaking about in Romans 11..

Not the one concerning the salvation of the world (in you shall all nations be blessed)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I know what he believes from previous discussions, unlike you, so that's how I know he means that Jesus died at the end of the 69th week and not after the 69th week.

If he meant that he would have posted that

He posted AFTER

I also know what the word AFTER means..

so unless he wrote the word after by mistake. Then I will take him by what he means (You also quoted the post where he used the word after, then mocked him)


Unfortunately you read what other people like you read the word of God.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It's sad how jealous you are. What a joke, indeed.

Jealous? Of you? lol. Now that the funniest thing I have read all day

Why would I be jealous of someone who does not read the first part of a chapter to get context. then totally destroys the last part of the chapter and mocks people who does not agree with him?

Yeah, Now thats a joke

 

[covenantee]

Jealous? Of you? lol. Now that the funniest thing I have read all day

Why would I be jealous of someone who does not read the first part of a chapter to get context. then totally destroys the last part of the chapter and mocks people who does not agree with him?

Yeah, Now thats a joke

Daniel 9:1-23 is a precursor in which Daniel describes and laments the spiritual condition and failings of his people, which have resulted in their judgment and punishment through exile to Babylon.

Thereupon, in Daniel 9:24-27, God through Gabriel proceeds to describe His merciful, complete, and perfect plan for Daniel's people, through the provision and sacrifice of His Son, Messiah the Prince who would and did come to confirm His Everlasting Covenant, beginning with Daniel's people for seven years, first through Jesus' own ministry for 3.5 years, then through the ministry of His disciples for the remaining 3.5 years, thus completing the 70th week, after which the extension of the Everlasting Covenant was begun to the Gentiles, through the proclamation of the Gospel to them.

The entire chapter of Daniel 9 is thus one unfolding fulfilled spiritual continuum.

So any dispensational claims that Christ at Calvary in verses 24-27 is somehow divorced and alienated from verses 1-23 is abject nonsense; the unfolding of God's Plan is patently and transparently clear, and the New Covenant/Testament in the Blood of His Son prophesied in these verses is a compelling and irrefutable testimony and witness to that Plan.

And it is that Plan to which the collective, united, and unanimous faith, wisdom, and discernment of the historic true Christian Church for 17 centuries bear unassailable confession.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Daniel 9:1-23 is a precursor in which Daniel describes and laments the spiritual condition and failings of his people, which have resulted in their judgment and punishment through exile to Babylon.

Thereupon, in Daniel 9:24-27, God through Gabriel proceeds to describe His merciful, complete, and perfect plan for Daniel's people, through the provision and sacrifice of His Son, Messiah the Prince who would and did come to confirm His Everlasting Covenant, beginning with Daniel's people for seven years, first through Jesus' own ministry for 3.5 years, then through the ministry of His disciples for the remaining 3.5 years, thus completing the 70th week, after which the extension of the Everlasting Covenant was begun to the Gentiles, through the proclamation of the Gospel to them.

The entire chapter of Daniel 9 is thus one unfolding fulfilled spiritual continuum.

So any dispensational claims that Christ at Calvary in verses 24-27 is somehow divorced and alienated from verses 1-23 is abject nonsense; the unfolding of God's Plan is patently and transparently clear, and the New Covenant/Testament in the Blood of His Son prophesied in these verses is a compelling and irrefutable testimony and witness to that Plan.

And it is that Plan to which the collective, united, and unanimous faith, wisdom, and discernment of the historic true Christian Church for 17 centuries bear unassailable confession.

There is only one problem with this view

If Israel would have repented. God would have restored them, according to Lev 26.

Thats what Daniel was praying for. That's also why he cried out for mercy, Because Daniel understood Israel had not repented yet according to what he said the law of Moses demanded

If you would like to study it, I would be free to go over it.

But I feel it would not get us anywhere. Because you have already made up your mind

 

[covenantee]

There is only one problem with this view

If Israel would have repented. God would have restored them, according to Lev 26.

Thats what Daniel was praying for. That's also why he cried out for mercy, Because Daniel understood Israel had not repented yet according to what he said the law of Moses demanded

If you would like to study it, I would be free to go over it.

But I feel it would not get us anywhere. Because you have already made up your mind

God responded to Daniel's prayer with His Plan.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

God responded to Daniel's prayer with His Plan.

No

God responded by telling him what would happen

Thats what prophesy does. It says this will happen..

Its not a plan..

 

[covenantee]

No

God responded by telling him what would happen

Thats what prophesy does. It says this will happen..

Its not a plan..

His Plan was prophesied (foretold), and fulfilled in the first coming of His Son, and His Sacrifice on Calvary.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

His Plan was prophesied (foretold), and fulfilled in the first coming of His Son, and His Sacrifice on Calvary.

It was not a plan.

His plan was that at the end of the 70 week. Daniel and his people would be restored. because they made an end of their sin.

He keeps his promises.

You can deny it all you want. But it will not keep from the truth

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did not say that, Don;t put words in my mouth

Why else would you say that I'm not discussing the Word except that you think that's the case just because I disagree with you? I certainly am discussion the Word, so don't tell me otherwise.

You said it does not mean they are blinded until a certain time or something to that affect. Your backtracking now>

LOL. You have no idea of what you're talking about. You said "He said they are blinded in part UNTIL a time in the future" and I said that I didn't say otherwise, which is true. I just happen to have a different understanding of what that means than you do.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Do you believe that those Israelites who were blinded in Paul's day and those who have been blinded since then were blinded the rest of their lives after being blinded? That seems to be your understanding of what it means to be blinded.

Thats what Paul said

Should we not take paul at his word? Or make him mean something else? Your not arguing with me your arguing with Paul

So Paul does not know what he is talking about? I think it makes perfecty sense. if for nothing else. Paul said it would happen.

It's cute how you act as if you are Paul himself. That is what you THINK he said, but I disagree. Can you acknowledge that you're sharing your opinion of what he said or are you too prideful to acknowledge that?

So salvation does not work if one repents and recieves Christ they may not be saved?

I, of course, never said that. Any other ridiculous questions you'd like to ask.

What is your gospel?

Same as the one you believe in. Ridiculous question that I would not ask you because it's rude. While we may disagree on the things we're talking about, it doesn't make me think that you believe in a different gospel than I do. A gospel that says Jesus Christ died and rose again on the third day and those who repent and put their faith in Him will be saved. I will assume you believe that instead of rudely questioning whether you even understand elementary truths like that or not.

No we should not. Because the Israel he is talking about in Romans 11 is not in the context of that Israel.

How do you figure?

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul said "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". Which means not all who descend from the nation of Israel are Israel. When Paul said "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" many of us call the first Israel he referenced Spiritual Israel. Are not all who are part of that Israel saved? Paul explained that the qualifications for being part of that Israel have nothing to do with being a physical descendant but rather with being "children of God" and "the children of the promise".

Not sure what that has to do with What Paul said would happen in a future date

You are not reading what he said carefully enough. Paul was referencing an Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 59:20-21 and talking about what would happen in a future time from when that prophecy was given. He was not giving a new prophecy about the future, but explaining how that Old Testament prophecy was being fulfilled and would continue to be fulfilled until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

You postpone the salvation of Israel until the future because of seeing a description of them being blinded in part despite Paul having said this about the blinded Israelites of his day:

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Can you see here how Paul referred to those who were blinded in his day and asked if they stumbled that they should fall? And he said "God forbid". They weren't blinded for the rest of their lives with no chance at salvation. They were blinded in part so that saved Gentiles would provoke them to jealousy so that they too would want to be saved. And Paul talked about helping to save some of them who were blinded at that time. Unless you come to understand that Paul was talking about an ongoing process of the way in which God planned to lead the Israelites to salvation (through jealousy of the Gentiles) instead of thinking he was only talking about the future, you will not understand what he was saying in Romans 11.

Lets put it this way.

when Jacob is no longer living in sin, When they are no longer enemies concerning the gospel. We will know the prophecy has come true. Thats how prophecy works

That's not what Paul was saying. It wasn't all of Israel who were enemies concerning the gospel, it was only those who were blinded. Paul said "the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded" (Romans 11:7). Surely, the remnant of believers were not enemies concerning the gospel. And, again, Paul indicated that he wanted to help lead some of those who were blinded in his day to salvation. Yet, here you are acting like no one who is blinded can be saved until some future time. If that was the case then what Paul said in Romans 11:14 would not make any sense. It would mean that his hope to help save some of them was futile and misguided.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Paul seperated them to show the differences between the two

They were separated in the past. But, Paul showed that Jesus brought them together as one.

Is the following scripture in your Bible or not?

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

How much more clear can this be that Jesus brought Jew and Gentile believers together as one by way of His death on the cross and His shed blood? It couldn't be more clear. And here you are still denying it. Unbelievable.

If Israel is now only spiritual israel. Then there is no need to seperate them. because they are all the same

I'm not saying national Israel is now only spiritual Israel. I see those as separate entities with Spiritual Israel including both ethnic Jew and Gentile believers. Being part of Spiritual Israel has nothing to do with one's nationality.

Paul seperated them. NOT ME

And he showed how Jesus brought them together. Why do you ignore that?

Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Your doing exactly what I said you are doing. Yet you are denying it..And your claiming I am a bad person?

I'm not making false accusations towards you like you are towards me.

The covenant concerning Israel. that paul is talking about. has nothing to do with anyone being saved.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

This one? Since when does having one's sins taken away not have anything to do with anyone being saved?

That why he said THEY (Israel proper) are enemies concerning the gospel. But beloved concerning the promises. The promises of God are irrevocable. God established a covenant wiht their fathers with abraham Issac and Jacob, That covenant stands today. With you want it to or not does not make it null and void

You are butchering the text. Only the blinded unbelievers were enemies concerning the gospel and only the remnant of believers were beloved concerning the promises.

Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Notice here that Paul talks about two groups. The "remnant according to the election of grace" that he also called "the election". And then "the rest" who "were blinded". With that in mind, let's look at the verse you are referencing:

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

So, using scripture (Romans 11:5-7) to interpret scripture (Romans 11:28), how should we interpret Romans 11:28? Who are the "enemies for your sakes"? That would be the rest who were blinded that Paul mentioned earlier. And as for the election, which Paul indicated earlier was the "remnant according to the election of grace", they were "beloved for the father's sakes". Surely, blind unbeievers are not "beloved for the father's sakes". That would make no sense. And, surely, believers would not be called enemies in relation to the gospel.

I never said that.

Again WHAT WAS THER SIN?

It is obvious that you have not studied why they were under babylon rule and why their nation and city was destroyed and why they were and still are scattered throughout the world.

If you do not understand that, You can never understand my belief or the prophecy of Daniel

Ah, so, somehow a reference to making an end of sin turns into making an end of only one particular sin. That is farfetched, to say the least.

I want to be done with your false teaching.

I'm not teaching anything false. You certainly have done nothing to convincingly refute what I've taught.

I want God proclaimed a God who says things happen thousands of years in advance, and they happen. As he said.

And I want his reputation as a God who keeps his promises put back in order. not destroyed like your doing

You don't need to resort to lying like this. You come across as desperate when you make up lies about me. I never indicated in any way, shape or form that I don't believe God keeps His promises. And you know it. Just because I disagree with your interpretations doesn't mean you can lie and accuse me of saying that God doesn't keep His promises. We just happen to disagree with how He keeps His promises in some cases. For example, it's not as if I don't think that God would keep His promise made in the prophecy Paul that Paul referenced in Romans 11:26-27, which was from Isaiah 59:20-21. I just see Him as keeping that promise in a different way than you do.

Look back to Gen 12, then go to Gen 15 then go to Gen 17.

Look at the covenant given to one seed of Abraham. The covenant reconfirmed with Isaac and then reconfirmed again with Jacob and his 12 sons, and the one Paul is speaking about in Romans 11..

Not the one concerning the salvation of the world (in you shall all nations be blessed)

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

This covenant relates directly to taking away people's sins. Forgiving their sins. How can you think that doesn't relate to salvation? And how can you think it doesn't relate to the new covenant?

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Did God make more than one covenant by which He would forgive sins? No. So, Romans 11:27 and Matthew 26:28 are talking about the same covenant. The new covenant.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If he meant that he would have posted that

He posted AFTER

I also know what the word AFTER means..

so unless he wrote the word after by mistake. Then I will take him by what he means (You also quoted the post where he used the word after, then mocked him)


Unfortunately you read what other people like you read the word of God.

You really need to slow down and stop making yourself look bad. I have had discussions with him about this in the past and I know that he believes that Jesus was cut off at the end of the 69th week rather than some time (even a short time) after the 69th week ended because that is what he said. He's not the only one here who does that. For whatever reason (probably doctrinal bias), some here have decided that the word "after" doesn't mean what the word obviously means. It never means "at the end of" as some here imagine. So, there's no reason to act as if I don't know what he believes. I do. You obviously don't.

 

[covenantee]

It was not a plan.

His plan was that at the end of the 70 week. Daniel and his people would be restored. because they made an end of their sin.

He keeps his promises.

You can deny it all you want. But it will not keep from the truth

It was His Plan.

He kept His Promises.

2 Corinthians 1
20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

You can deny His Plan all you want.

But it happened, 2,000 years ago.

Whether you like it or not.