Another Premillennial absurdity

[Truth7t7]

Why are you not being honest with him about this?

You do not believe Jesus existed in any way, shape or form before He was born to the virgin Mary. That is what you have said before. Why did you not inform him of this?

You deny that the Word in this passage is referring to Jesus:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

You deny that Jesus is eternal and that He created all things. Why did you not inform him of this? Jesus can't be God without being the Creator and without being eternal. You show that you don't even know who God is by claiming that someone who you think has only existed for around 2,000 years could be God.

Exactly, way out in left field, thanks for the exposure of the power who denies the very deity of Jesus Christ

 

[Truth7t7]

You are obviously desperate for texts to dump into your imaginary age. This is typical Premil. They are constantly adding to Scripture. It is expressly talking about the NHNE that comes when Jesus appears.

After talking about the righteous and their eternal bliss the prophet then turns to the awful fate of the wicked. Isaiah 65:20 says: “the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.”

The Hebrew literally reads:

וְהַ֣חֹוטֶ֔א בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה יְקֻלָּֽל׃
wªhachowTe ben- mee'aah shaanaah yªqulaa
the sinner an hundred years old [shall be] accursed

The Hebrew literally reads:

וְהַ֣חֹוטֶ֔א בֶּן־מֵאָ֥ה שָׁנָ֖ה יְקֻלָּֽל׃
wªhachowTe ben- mee'aah šā-nāh yªqulaa
the sinner an hundred years old [shall be] accursed

וְהַ֣חוֹטֶ֔א
wªhachowTe
the sinner

בֶּן־
ben-
Old

מֵאָ֥ה
mee'aah
an hundred

שָׁנָ֖ה
šā-nāh
years

יְקֻלָּֽל׃
yªqulaa
Cursed

The Hebrew word yªqulaa simply means “is accursed.”
The Hebrew word wªhachowTe simply means "sinner."

There is no mention here of the word “death” or “die” in the Hebrew!

The inclusion of the phrase “Accursed an hundred years old sinner” is simply a solemn reminder to the reader that the fate of the unbeliever is starkly different to that being depicted for the believer on the new earth. In the midst of his joy at the revelation of the new earth the Old Testament prophet compares the bliss, blessing and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in hell. The solemn thought is: the eternal horror and hopelessness that will be the lot of the wicked is not just for a short time, it is forever. There is no sense that the wicked are on the new earth here. Isaiah is not describing more of the same as Premil teaches. The new earth is not a repeat or rehash of this corruptible age. This must be forced into the text.

The writer is simply making a comparison (in the midst of his joy at the thought of the new earth) between the bliss and perfection of the glorified new earth and the horror of the fate of the wicked in the lake of fire. There is no sense that the wicked are on the earth here.

The sinner will indeed be accursed in eternity. Throughout Scripture God concentrates on the elect, and often attaches a postscript in regard to the wicked. That is all we are looking at in the phrase: “sinner old hundred years is cursed.” Their condition is eternally sealed and irreversible - it is hopeless.

There is no record of death on the new earth for the elect in the original Hebrew; only for the wicked who are experiencing eternal wrath in the Lake of Fire. Here is a notable difference between Amil and Premil, Amils believe the wicked are all judged when Jesus comes and banished into a lost eternity, Premil on the other hand (amazingly) rewards the wicked at the end (especially those who fight against Jerusalem at the end) by allowing them to inherit the new earth. The gorge between these two views couldn't be further.

Parallel readings of the New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, seen below

Isaiah 65:17-20KJ V
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

Revelation 21:1-5KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No, I didn't ignore it. Contrary to what others might think, Paul has finished his thought in verse 24 and he has started a new thought in 25. Your translation may have a comma there, but in my view, there should be a period and a paragraph separation ther

God said so in the book of Hosea. Think about it, the prophecy speaks about a time when it was said, "you are not my people." There has NEVER been a time when this was said of Gentiles. Of course the Gentiles were not his people. This goes without saying. But consider what it means to be "my people". This phrase is informed by ancient beliefs that each region of the earth was ruled by different gods. And each god had his own people. Yahweh brought a people for himself out of Egypt. The promise "I will be your God and You will be my people" is understood in the context of polytheism when it was supposed that each region of the earth was controlled by a different god. And, not only this, a god is "god" to a people if he is able to bless them materially and keep them safe from their enemies.

While the followers of Jesus are "his people" in a truer, more profound way, it isn't true, therefore, that Yahweh promises to bless us materially and keep our enemies from attacking us. Rather, we are looking for eternal life in the age of ages.

Nonetheless, God promised Israel, the body corporate, to bless them materially and protect them from their enemies.

Although I completely agree with you that the prophecy about "Not My People" applied exclusively to Israel (along with proselytes to that faith), I don't agree that God has changed and no longer blesses nations materially. God doesn't always bless *individuals* materially because sometimes God's saints live in pagan or apostate countries where they are persecuted and where they suffer along with the citizens of each country the various plagues that come upon them due to their unrighteousness.

But God does and has blessed Christian nations in the NT era, when the large majority of a nation embraces the laws of Christ and lives in relative obedience to those dictates. Consider the tremendous blessing God has poured out on England, a Christian country. However, in its decline from Christian standards, England has also declined in her greatness. This is just one example.

Although it is true that some of the OT Scriptures spoke into the context of a pluralistic pagan world, it does not follow that God was imitating pagan gods and nations by claiming His own material region of the world to bless it materially. He certainly did that, but only because His program was planned to start with one nation and then expand, through the Gospel of Christ, to many pagan nations. It was a conquest, rather than a capitulation to the pagan world. God owned the entire world, although He let lesser demonic rulers rule over nations where people adopted that rule.

 

[Truth7t7]

Although I completely agree with you that the prophecy about "Not My People" applied exclusively to Israel (along with proselytes to that faith), I don't agree that God has changed and no longer blesses nations materially. God doesn't always bless *individuals* materially because sometimes God's saints live in pagan or apostate countries where they are persecuted and where they suffer along with the citizens of each country the various plagues that come upon them due to their unrighteousness.

But God does and has blessed Christian nations in the NT era, when the large majority of a nation embraces the laws of Christ and lives in relative obedience to those dictates. Consider the tremendous blessing God has poured out on England, a Christian country. However, in its decline from Christian standards, England has also decline in her greatness. This is just one example.

Although it is true that some of the OT Scriptures spoke into the context of a pluralistic pagan world, it does not follow that God was imitating them by claiming a material region of the world to bless it materially. He certainly did that, but only because His program was planned to start with one nation and then expand, through the Gospel of Christ, to many pagan nations. It was a conquest, rather than a capitulation to the pagan world.

There is no future "National Slavation For Israel" as you believe and teach Randy, you can try to lay the groundwork for this teaching, it's found no place in scripture

There are two groups of humans in the world, 1.) "unsaved world" and 2.) "saved Church", it's that simple

No such thing as the "National Plan" as you believe and teach, it Sci-Fi, a Fairy Tale

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is no future "National Slavation For Israel" as you believe and teach Randy, you can try to lay the groundwork for this teaching, it's found no place in scripture

There are two groups of humans in the world, 1.) "unsaved world" and 2.) "saved Church", it's that simple

No such thing as the "National Plan" as you believe and teach, it Sci-Fi, a Fairy Tale

I already know you reject that. What do you hope to gain by repeating to me what you refuse to believe in? I'm fine with you believing what you think is the truth. You serve God--not me. You serve your own conscience, and not what I pressure you to believe. You know this, and yet you feel you have to answer every post I make with, "your beliefs are fables, Randy." You don't need to do this--I know what you don't believe! ;)

On the other hand, I believe according to my own consciences, and don't respond to pressures either, nor manipulation, nor suffering a group of opponents. I certainly don't care of there is a group here who hold to similar doctrines. The problem is, we need to let each one follow his own guidance, right?

I have to share what I believe to be true, because if I'm right, this truth is necessary for all of us. The Scriptures--every part of them, are important for us. So I place the greatest importance on our unity in Christ as we live out the dictates of the Gospel.

But I can't neglect what I've been studying for 50 years. I've held to a lot of positions, and have been blessed by finding ultimate answers to many of my questions. It is my job to share this help with others, just as God has helped me. If it doesn't help you, fine.

 

[Truth7t7]

I already know you reject that. What do you hope to gain by repeating to me what you refuse to believe in? I'm fine with you believing what you think is the truth. You serve God--not me. You serve your own conscience, and not what I pressure you to believe. You know this, and yet you feel you have to answer every post I make with, "your beliefs are fables, Randy." You don't need to do this--I know what you don't believe! ;)

On the other hand, I believe according to my own consciences, and don't respond to pressures either, nor manipulation, nor suffering a group of opponents. I certainly don't care of there is a group here who hold to similar doctrines. The problem is, we need to let each one follow his own guidance, right?

I have to share what I believe to be true, because if I'm right, this truth is necessary for all of us. The Scriptures--every part of them, are important for us. So I place the greatest importance on our unity in Christ as we live out the dictates of the Gospel.

But I can't neglect what I've been studying for 50 years. I've held to a lot of positions, and have been blessed by finding ultimate answers to many of my questions. It is my job to share this help with others, just as God has helped me. If it doesn't help you, fine.

And it's my calling to expose your repeated teaching in a "National Salvation For Israel" found no place in scripture, the truth

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[CadyandZoe]

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

Notice what Paul says in verse 14. What you're saying completely contradicts that. You're talking as if this is all about corporate Israel, yet Paul talks about hoping to "save some of them". Some of who? Individual Israelites. He's not talking corporately there. He's talking about the salvation of individuals. The whole idea was for the salvation of the Gentiles to make Israelites envious so that they too would want to be saved and that resulted in the salvation of some Israelites just as Paul had hoped. And some have been saved ever since as well.

I understand your point, but don't overlook the fact that Paul continues to maintain his distinction between "my own people" and "the Gentiles." Saving some of his kinsmen magnifies his ministry, of course. It would certainly increase the number of people being saved. But I don't think Paul is focused on the numbers of individuals he might save. He is still focused on the big picture ideas he presented earlier in the previous chapter.

In verse 8, he quotes from Deuteronomy 29:4, which is repeated in Isaiah 29:10. As of yet and as a general rule, God has not given Israel eyes to see and ears to hear. It would magnify Paul's ministry if God were to awaken Israel from her stupor; give them eyes to see and earst to hear; and a heart to know him. Paul knows that day will come, and he knows that making Israel jealous will precede that day.

In verse 9, Paul quotes an imprecatory Psalm, wherein David calls down curses on his enemies because they had the audacity to attack the man whom God placed over his kingdom. His enemies attempted to usurp the throne and take it away from David. Paul sees a connection between David's experience and Jesus' experience in regard to being attacked by enemies. And Jesus' enemies came from his own people. And they also attempted to usurp the throne and take it for themselves.

In verse 11, Paul asks whether God will "keep their eyes closed and bend their backs forever" as David suggested? Paul says no, God is not going to do that. The eyes of Israel remain closed, but some day God will open them. And when he does, he will perhaps magnify Paul's ministry. In the meantime, salvation has come to the Gentiles through the cross.

In verse 12, Paul is focused on the significance of the crucifixion with regards to Israel's standing. Did Israel stumble so as to fall? How did she stumble? She put the messiah to death, which resulted in salvation for the Gentiles. Then, he says, if Israel's transgression, i.e. putting the messiah to death, resulted in salvation for the world, then how much greater will her fulfillment be. And fulfillment in this context means reconciliation between Israel and Yahweh.

Yes, of course it does. All Christians are considered holy because the blood of Christ washes our sins away and makes us holy. Paul is clearly talking about Jew and Gentiles believers being grafted into the olive tree while unbelievers are cut off.

But don't forget, Paul is still answering the rhetorical question concerning Israel from 11:11 and the promise inferred in 9:6. The question is, how will God transform a rebellious, stubborn people, he took as his "wife" and transform her into a faithful wife?

This is the biggest piece of nonsense I've ever seen.

Of course it is. Everything I say, with which you disagree, is nonsense. Haven't we established that point yet?

They remain holy even after being cut off? You have to be kidding me here. Please tell me you're joking. Do you understand that it was people like the Pharisees and scribes that Jesus called hypocrites and snakes that were cut off? You are trying to tell me they were holy even after being cut off? Get out of here with that nonsense! Nowhere did Paul indicate that they were still holy after being cut off. You continually make things up that are not taught in scripture.

Yes, that is what Paul is saying. Think carefully about his analogy. Say you have a glass pitcher of water, containing no impurities. The water in the pitcher is pure and sweet. Paul is saying that if you pour yourself a glass of water from that pitcher, the water in the glass will be as pure as the water remaining in the pitcher.

In his words, if the whole lump of dough is holy, then the portion you remove is still holy. According to Paul, removing a piece of dough from a holy lump doesn't change the status of the piece. The lump is holy and so is the piece that you removed.

The same is true of the holy tree. Since the tree is holy, then any branches broken off the tree remain holy. Branches were broken off the tree so that the Gentiles might be grafted on. While this situation might cause the Gentiles to brag or wax arrogant, Paul warns the Gentiles not to be arrogant against the branches. Why? Because the broken-off branches remain holy.

You are a false teacher and you have been thoroughly exposed as such on this forum. You really should give it up because you're not fooling anyone anymore.

What else is new? I mean really.

Christians should allow the New Testament authors to tell them how to properly understand the Old Testament. You fail to do that.

Hmm. What Christians should do is believe the Apostles when they explicate the Old Testament, and they should also allow the Apostles to base arguments on the Old Testament, but what Christians should NOT DO is believe that the Apostles give novel interpretations of the Old Testament, which the Old Testament didn't actually mean.

 

[Truth7t7]

I understand your point, but don't overlook the fact that Paul continues to maintain his distinction between "my own people" and "the Gentiles." Saving some of his kinsmen magnifies his ministry, of course. It would certainly increase the number of people being saved. But I don't think Paul is focused on the numbers of individuals he might save. He is still focused on the big picture ideas he presented earlier in the previous chapter.

In verse 8, he quotes from Deuteronomy 29:4, which is repeated in Isaiah 29:10. As of yet and as a general rule, God has not given Israel eyes to see and ears to hear. It would magnify Paul's ministry if God were to awaken Israel from her stupor; give them eyes to see and earst to hear; and a heart to know him. Paul knows that day will come, and he knows that making Israel jealous will precede that day.

In verse 9, Paul quotes an imprecatory Psalm, wherein David calls down curses on his enemies because they had the audacity to attack the man whom God placed over his kingdom. His enemies attempted to usurp the throne and take it away from David. Paul sees a connection between David's experience and Jesus' experience in regard to being attacked by enemies. And Jesus' enemies came from his own people. And they also attempted to usurp the throne and take it for themselves.

In verse 11, Paul asks whether God will "keep their eyes closed and bend their backs forever" as David suggested? Paul says no, God is not going to do that. The eyes of Israel remain closed, but some day God will open them. And when he does, he will perhaps magnify Paul's ministry. In the meantime, salvation has come to the Gentiles through the cross.

In verse 12, Paul is focused on the significance of the crucifixion with regards to Israel's standing. Did Israel stumble so as to fall? How did she stumble? She put the messiah to death, which resulted in salvation for the Gentiles. Then, he says, if Israel's transgression, i.e. putting the messiah to death, resulted in salvation for the world, then how much greater will her fulfillment be. And fulfillment in this context means reconciliation between Israel and Yahweh.


But don't forget, Paul is still answering the rhetorical question concerning Israel from 11:11 and the promise inferred in 9:6. The question is, how will God transform a rebellious, stubborn people, he took as his "wife" and transform her into a faithful wife?



Of course it is. Everything I say, with which you disagree, is nonsense. Haven't we established that point yet?

Yes, that is what Paul is saying. Think carefully about his analogy. Say you have a glass pitcher of water, containing no impurities. The water in the pitcher is pure and sweet. Paul is saying that if you pour yourself a glass of water from that pitcher, the water in the glass will be as pure as the water remaining in the pitcher.

In his words, if the whole lump of dough is holy, then the portion you remove is still holy. According to Paul, removing a piece of dough from a holy lump doesn't change the status of the piece. The lump is holy and so is the piece that you removed.

The same is true of the holy tree. Since the tree is holy, then any branches broken off the tree remain holy. Branches were broken off the tree so that the Gentiles might be grafted on. While this situation might cause the Gentiles to brag or wax arrogant, Paul warns the Gentiles not to be arrogant against the branches. Why? Because the broken-off branches remain holy.


What else is new? I mean really.

Hmm. What Christians should do is believe the Apostles when they explicate the Old Testament, and they should also allow the Apostles to base arguments on the Old Testament, but what Christians should NOT DO is believe that the Apostles give novel interpretations of the Old Testament, which the Old Testament didn't actually mean.

Romans chapter 11 is doing nothing more than speaking about "The Remnant Elect Jew" that God has foreknowledge of

1.) Israel hath not obtained

2.) The election hath obtained

When the remnant elect Jew is saved, they become "Church" just as all that have been called and chosen to election, both Jew and Gentile

Romans 11:2-8KJV
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
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.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yeah, I guess I did miss that it was something coming from a creed rather than from you.

You still didn't make it clear anywhere in your post that you don't believe that Jesus is eternal, you dont believe that He created all things and you don't believe that He existed in any way, shape or form until He was born of the virgin Mary, though. Why not?

Two reasons: (1) it isn't Biblical, and (2) the idea is nonsensical.

You already told me this before and I told you it was nonsense. Do you really think I wanted to read this nonsense again?

I don't know. Evidence suggests the affirmative.

Yes, it does. Repeatedly. You've been shown the passage and you twist all of them to fit your false beliefs.

Well, I can see that from your perspective, it might look that way. But from my perspective, I untie knots that other people have created.

You speak complete nonsense. God by identity but not really God is what you seem to be saying. Just complete gibberish that can't be taken seriously.

You know how the word "barbarian" came into use? The strangers from the north were called "barbarians" because the strangers seemed to be saying "baw, baw, baw". In fact, they were speaking an intelligible language.

So then, when you tell me that I speak complete nonsense, I take this to mean "I don't understand you, because you speak a foreign language." You don't understand me because I am telling you things that you have never heard before, using a vocabulary with which you are unfamiliar. I get that.

Anyone who denies His humanity is obviously a moron, so why even bring them up? The issue here is you denying His deity. That is a major problem.

I bring it up because although people ostensibly believe in his humanity, as it is, they don't. I won't get into that right now. But if you get a chance, pay attention to threads that ask whether it was possible for Jesus to sin or possible for Jesus to be tempted or possible for Jesus to die.

Anyone who has studied the New Testament can tell you, there remains no doctrine taught in the New Testament that depends on the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Not one. But the doctrine of his humanity is central to the gospel.

How does John define "antichrist"? Those who are "antichrist" according to John are those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh. The prevailing teaching coming from the scribes and the Pharisees is the idea that the Messiah would be an angel or a theophany. To suggest that the Messiah would come as a human man was blasphemous in their view. According to John, the humanity of Jesus is a central tenet of our faith.

Paul the apostle spends the first two chapters of his epistle to the Hebrews arguing the case that Jesus was not an angel or a theophany, but he came as a man, and his humanity did not disqualify him from being the messiah.

The central theme of the New Testament is that Jesus, the man, is the son of God. David wrote an entire psalm about this. (maybe others) Read Psalm 8 several times this weekend. I think you will hear David speak to God with excited expectation that God intended to place a man "a little lower than God." David marvels that God is going to cause a man to rule over all creation and place all of his enemies under his feet.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well, he obviously did if you actually read what he said, so you are then saying he is in error. That's a bad idea.

What I am saying is this. Paul doesn't have the authority or wish to "find" something in the Bible that isn't there, simply because it helps his argument. If Paul is making an argument from scripture, he expects his readers to go and look to see for themselves if Paul's exegesis is correct.

Okay? This is how it works. I read my translation where it has a comma separating 9:24 and 9:25. I am aware that punctuation is not inspired, representing what the translator believed Paul meant to say. Based on my translation, it appears that Paul has found a scripture supporting his contention that God has called Gentiles. So, I go and take a look at Hosea chapter 2 to see what Paul found.

Now. lo and behold, Gentiles aren't mentioned anywhere in that passage. So what do I conclude? Paul is allowed to make stuff up? No, rather, I conclude that my translator made a mistake. In fact, there should not be a comma between 9:24 and 9:25. Paul was done with his point in 9:24 and started a new point in 9:25.

In my view, Paul is never wrong. My translation might be wrong. My interpretation might be wrong. But Paul is never wrong. But also, Paul would never attempt to amend or change the Old Testament. So if my interpretation has Paul changing something or adding to it, I know that my interpretation is incorrect.

That is how I approach Bible study. First, both Jesus and the Apostles believed in the inerrancy of scripture. The scripture is fixed and can never be changed or amended. And for this reason, both Jesus and the Apostles based their teaching solidly on prior revelation, just as we should do also. Secondly, if we conclude that Paul is playing fast-and-loose with the text, that he is adding to the text, or that he is allowed to come up with a novel interpretation, then we need to think twice and question our interpretation.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Old Testament was not always explicit about things. There are times when it can seem to only be talking about Israel or the Jews, such as when it talks about God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

But, then we have Paul telling us that God's promises to Abraham and his seed were to Abraham and to Christ (Galatians 3:16) and are expanded to include those who belong to Christ as well (Galatians 3:29). Is that something that is made clear in the Old Testament? No. Yet, that is what is taught in the NT. You need to start accepting what the NT teaches about the OT instead of just disregarding the NT every time it teaches something different than what you see in the OT.

I agree that the OT contains information that is hard to see or hard to understand. I agree that the arrival of Jesus on the scene brought many OT teachings into sharp focus, and especially because Jesus himself was the light of the world. But I also believe Jesus and the apostles find cross connections between various OT passages that actually exist. Maybe we didn't seem them and maybe Jesus' contemporaries didn't see them but the cross connections and associations were always there. Any one of Jesus' contemporaries could have seen it themselves, if they knew what to look for.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Romans chapter 11 is doing nothing more than speaking about "The Remnant Elect Jew" that God has foreknowledge of

1.) Israel hath not obtained

2.) The election hath obtained

When the remnant elect Jew is saved, they become "Church" just as all that have been called and chosen to election, both Jew and Gentile

Romans 11:2-8KJV
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
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.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;)unto this day.

I agree with what you said about the remnant Jew. But I think there is more to Romans 11 than individual salvation. Paul starts a new subject in verse 7.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't agree, but I do understand the problems. I don't find you heterodox inasmuch as you declare Jesus to be one with God, and in fact, God. But it is somewhat confusing to then say he is not "of the same essence," and "not deity in the way that God is deity." But it's a difficult subject.

It is concerning, though, that you reject the standard creeds. They separated conventional Christians from heretics like the Arians and the modalists. (Since writing this post, I've learned more about your claim that Jesus did not pre-exist. That is definitely in heresy territory, although I would agree that Jesus did not exist in the form of *Man* before his incarnation.)

Like you, I had to come to grips with Trinitarianism and Christology as well. Much of the problem is language, because there were several languages involved in the discussion, and also because expressing items that involve the infinite is difficult.

The Creeds came up with a formula that seemed to work for all languages concerned, even though it left some feeling a bit short of the goal. "3 Persons and 1 Substance." I might say there is 1 Deity and 3 Divine Persons. There does have to be a litmus test for doctrinal orthodoxy, however, and the creeds, I believe, have served well, even if they don't always convey the entire set of problems.

Thanks for the explanation.

If you decide to continue your studies in this area, take a look at Aristotle's metaphysics. He was trying to make sense of the natural world, but before he could do that, he decided to make sense of "being qua being" or "existence as it is." Those who came up with the creeds were swimming in Aristotle's metaphysics, attempting to make sense of the Biblical record given their culturally accepted philosophical assumptions.

If Aristotle's metaphysics is the basis of the creeds, then we should attempt to understand Aristotle. But then, am I allowed to disagree with Aristotle, since we have no report that his work is inspired scripture? And if I disagree with Aristotle and Aristotle is the basis of the creeds, am I allowed to disagree with the creeds? Am I allowed to suggest that threats of violence, not truth is the sole reason for the doctrine's longevity? Am I allowed to suggest that disagreement with Athanasius doesn't make one a disciple of Arius?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well, he obviously did if you actually read what he said, so you are then saying he is in error. That's a bad idea.

What I am saying is this. Paul doesn't have the authority or wish to "find" something in the Bible that isn't there, simply because it helps his argument. If Paul is making an argument from scripture, he expects his readers to go and look to see for themselves if Paul's exegesis is correct.

Why would we approach the Bible this way? First, both Jesus and the Apostles believed in the inerrancy of scripture. The scripture is fixed and can never be changed or amended. And for this reason, both Jesus and the Apostles based their teaching solidly on prior revelation, just as we should do also. Secondly, if we conclude that Paul is play fast-and-loose with the text, that he is adding to the text, or that he is allowed to come up with a novel interpretation, then we have no correction mechanism for our own exegesis. In other words, it's more likely that we misunderstood Paul and that he is NOT producing a novel interpretation of a particular passage.

What you don't seem to understand is that the Old Testament was not always explicit about things. There are times when it can seem to only be talking about Israel or the Jews, such as when it talks about God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

But, then we have Paul telling us that God's promises to Abraham and his seed were to Abraham and to Christ (Galatians 3:16) and are expanded to include those who belong to Christ as well (Galatians 3:29). Is that something that is made clear in the Old Testament? No. Yet, that is what is taught in the NT. You need to start accepting what the NT teaches about the OT instead of just disregarding the NT every time it teaches something different than what you see in the OT.

Although I completely agree with you that the prophecy about "Not My People" applied exclusively to Israel (along with proselytes to that faith), I don't agree that God has changed and no longer blesses nations materially. God doesn't always bless *individuals* materially because sometimes God's saints live in pagan or apostate countries where they are persecuted and where they suffer along with the citizens of each country the various plagues that come upon them due to their unrighteousness.

But God does and has blessed Christian nations in the NT era, when the large majority of a nation embraces the laws of Christ and lives in relative obedience to those dictates. Consider the tremendous blessing God has poured out on England, a Christian country. However, in its decline from Christian standards, England has also declined in her greatness. This is just one example.

Although it is true that some of the OT Scriptures spoke into the context of a pluralistic pagan world, it does not follow that God was imitating pagan gods and nations by claiming His own material region of the world to bless it materially. He certainly did that, but only because His program was planned to start with one nation and then expand, through the Gospel of Christ, to many pagan nations. It was a conquest, rather than a capitulation to the pagan world. God owned the entire world, although He let lesser demonic rulers rule over nations where people adopted that rule.

While all of that may be true, I think Paul is focused on the question of Israel and how she will become a Christian nation eventually. Agree?

 

[Truth7t7]

I agree with what you said about the remnant Jew. But I think there is more to Romans 11 than individual salvation. Paul starts a new subject in verse 7.

There isn't one word in Roman's Chaper 11 that negates the fact that only the "Remnant Elect" are saved, Israel as a Nation is blinded, simple, clear, easy to understand

Romans chapter 11 is doing nothing more than speaking about "The Remnant Elect Jew" that God has foreknowledge of

1.) Israel hath not obtained

2.) The election hath obtained

When the remnant elect Jew is saved, they become "Church" just as all that have been called and chosen to election, both Jew and Gentile

Romans 11:2-8KJV
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
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.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;)unto this day.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There isn't one word in Roman's Chaper 11 that negates the fact that only the "Remnant Elect" are saved, Israel as a Nation is blinded, simple, clear, easy to understand.

I agree, nothing negates that fact. But nothing in Romans 11, negates the promise God made to Israel.

 

[Truth7t7]

I agree, nothing negates that fact. But nothing in Romans 11, negates the promise God made to Israel.

What promise did God make to a mideastern country named "National Israel"?

 

[WPM]

Well, he obviously did if you actually read what he said, so you are then saying he is in error. That's a bad idea.


Yet, he very clearly did. You once again, are denying the obvious. I get the feeling that the New Testament isn't very important to you since you don't seem to accept anything taught in it.


What you don't seem to understand is that the Old Testament was not always explicit about things. There are times when it can seem to only be talking about Israel or the Jews, such as when it talks about God's promises to Abraham and his seed.

But, then we have Paul telling us that God's promises to Abraham and his seed were to Abraham and to Christ (Galatians 3:16) and are expanded to include those who belong to Christ as well (Galatians 3:29). Is that something that is made clear in the Old Testament? No. Yet, that is what is taught in the NT. You need to start accepting what the NT teaches about the OT instead of just disregarding the NT every time it teaches something different than what you see in the OT.

Let's be honest, it doesn't really matter with him what the NT says, what he believes trumps what the inspired text says. His heretical views on the deity of Christ are a case-in-point. You articulate a potent irrefutable rebuttal, but he doesn't get it!

By the way, he avoids so much in our posts that forbid his error. Just read any thread and you will see that is how he operates. That is good enough testimony. When detailed posts are submitted that expose his misrepresentation of Scripture he responds with evasive one-liners.

 

[Truth7t7]

If you decide to continue your studies in this area, take a look at Aristotle's metaphysics. He was trying to make sense of the natural world, but before he could do that, he decided to make sense of "being qua being" or "existence as it is." Those who came up with the creeds were swimming in Aristotle's metaphysics, attempting to make sense of the Biblical record given their culturally accepted philosophical assumptions.

If Aristotle's metaphysics is the basis of the creeds, then we should attempt to understand Aristotle. But then, am I allowed to disagree with Aristotle, since we have no report that his work is inspired scripture? And if I disagree with Aristotle and Aristotle is the basis of the creeds, am I allowed to disagree with the creeds? Am I allowed to suggest that threats of violence, not truth is the sole reason for the doctrine's longevity? Am I allowed to suggest that disagreement with Athanasius doesn't make one a disciple of Arius?

No need to study man's philosophy, God's words are sufficient, as you continue to push mans philosophy on the Christian forum

Perhaps it's Aristotle that has led you to deny the deity of Jesus Christ, contrary to God's inspired words

2 Timothy 3:16-17KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Truth7t7]

If you decide to continue your studies in this area, take a look at Aristotle's metaphysics. He was trying to make sense of the natural world, but before he could do that, he decided to make sense of "being qua being" or "existence as it is." Those who came up with the creeds were swimming in Aristotle's metaphysics, attempting to make sense of the Biblical record given their culturally accepted philosophical assumptions.

If Aristotle's metaphysics is the basis of the creeds, then we should attempt to understand Aristotle. But then, am I allowed to disagree with Aristotle, since we have no report that his work is inspired scripture? And if I disagree with Aristotle and Aristotle is the basis of the creeds, am I allowed to disagree with the creeds? Am I allowed to suggest that threats of violence, not truth is the sole reason for the doctrine's longevity? Am I allowed to suggest that disagreement with Athanasius doesn't make one a disciple of Arius?

No need to study man's philosophy, God's words are sufficient, as you continue to push mans philosophy

Perhaps it's Aristotle that has led you to deny the deity of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh, contrary to inspired scripture

2 Timothy 3:16-17KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you decide to continue your studies in this area, take a look at Aristotle's metaphysics. He was trying to make sense of the natural world, but before he could do that, he decided to make sense of "being qua being" or "existence as it is." Those who came up with the creeds were swimming in Aristotle's metaphysics, attempting to make sense of the Biblical record given their culturally accepted philosophical assumptions.

If Aristotle's metaphysics is the basis of the creeds, then we should attempt to understand Aristotle. But then, am I allowed to disagree with Aristotle, since we have no report that his work is inspired scripture? And if I disagree with Aristotle and Aristotle is the basis of the creeds, am I allowed to disagree with the creeds? Am I allowed to suggest that threats of violence, not truth is the sole reason for the doctrine's longevity? Am I allowed to suggest that disagreement with Athanasius doesn't make one a disciple of Arius?

I'm aware of the Greek background of the Trinitarian discussions. A major reason for the Creeds was the necessity to put into the contemporary language the understanding of Hebrew truths. Paul did not apologize for writing in the Greek language. He wasn't concerned about its Aristotelian background. He tried to describe the truths of God in the current language.

I don't want to hijack this thread--I just find it important to know if what someone said about you in this thread was true. And apparently it is, to some degree. You seem to be saying two opposite things, in effect justifying it by creating your own terminology. To say Jesus is God and Jesus isn't divinity is at the same time saying opposite things in the language of most people here. Trying to correct the problem of "Aristotelian language" doesn't do a thing for most people reading you here.

To stand alone against the traditional Creeds is no different than the cults. It is not just standing against language problems--it is standing against a language watered down sufficiently to allow all Christians of sincere faith and experience to sign on to it, and avoid confusion with language that ended up in heretical territory, such as Arianism and Modalism, as well as the belief that Jesus was strictly human--not God.

If you wish to pursue this, I suggest we take on a separate thread. This probably isn't the best place for the discussion. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I do understand that language is a formidable barrier here. And I am capable of discussing the subject to some degree. For now, my wish here is to express my support for your belief in Israel's national restoration at the Coming of Christ, and to reject any confusion of "Israel" with the International Church. I think you're right about that, and that is in fact part of what's important in this thread.