Another Premillennial absurdity

[Truth7t7]

Well then, I guess it appears that this mysterious question you and Randy find but cannot be found by others reading here cannot be answered.

Roman's 9:6-8 clearly identifies "Two" Israel's, one of the flesh "Ethnic Jews" and one of the promised seed "The Church" both Jew and Gentile

Your claims are from a poster in denial of the very deity of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh as seen below, nobody would expect otherwise!

Jesus Is The Lord

Colossians 2:9-10KJV
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

 

[Truth7t7]

Do you care to offer your answer to my question? Or are you comfortable in that chair and you don't want to get up? I understand if you don't.

Roman's 9:6-8 clearly identifies "Two" Israel's, one of the flesh "Ethnic Jews" and one of the promised seed "The Church" both Jew and Gentile

Your claims are from a poster in denial of the very deity of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh as seen below, nobody would expect otherwise!

Jesus Is The Lord

Colossians 2:9-10KJV
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well then, I guess it appears that this mysterious question you and Randy find but cannot be found by others reading here cannot be answered.

What is mysterious about it? Let me ask it again. Paul says that "it isn't as if the word of God has failed." I am asking you, or anyone else what specific promise of God didn't fail?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Roman's 9:6-8 clearly identifies "Two" Israel's, one of the flesh "Ethnic Jews" and one of the promised seed "The Church" both Jew and Gentile.

How do you know your response is the correct one? I don't think it is. Prove it. Tell me which specific promise of God is the topic of Romans 9? Which promise didn't fail?

 

[Truth7t7]

How do you know your response is the correct one? I don't think it is. Prove it. Tell me which specific promise of God is the topic of Romans 9? Which promise didn't fail?

You run in denial, you have no response!

Roman's 9:6-8 clearly identifies "Two" Israel's, one of the flesh "Ethnic Jews" and one of the promised seed "The Church" both Jew and Gentile

Your claims are from a poster in denial of the very deity of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh as seen below, nobody would expect otherwise!

Jesus Is The Lord

Colossians 2:9-10KJV
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

 

[rwb]

What is mysterious about it? Let me ask it again. Paul says that "it isn't as if the word of God has failed." I am asking you, or anyone else what specific promise of God didn't fail?

Paul makes that statement in regard to what he has already said. Paul is filled with sorrow knowing that not all of his kinsmen by ethnicity will not be saved. He thought if possible he would willingly give us his own eternity security to save them, because adoption, glory, the covenants, the law, and God's promises came through them. How? Because through Israel Christ would be born a Jew. Paul says just because not all of them are saved, it does not mean the Word of God is of no effect. Why? Because Israel according to the flesh (ethnicity) does not mean you are of Israel that shall be saved. Because eternal salvation is not dependent upon ethnicity, but is dependent upon faith alone. In vs 8 Paul proves this fact when he says the children of the flesh (ethnic Israel) and not the children of God. And only the children of the promise are counted for the SEED (Christ).

Romans 9:1-6 (KJV) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Romans 9:8 (KJV) 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.

 

[rwb]

What is mysterious about it? Let me ask it again. Paul says that "it isn't as if the word of God has failed." I am asking you, or anyone else what specific promise of God didn't fail?

Your question has been answered, but you don't like the answer because it shows you have not rightly understood Paul.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You run in denial, you have no response!

Roman's 9:6-8 clearly identifies "Two" Israel's, one of the flesh "Ethnic Jews" and one of the promised seed "The Church" both Jew and Gentile

Your claims are from a poster in denial of the very deity of Jesus Christ being God manifest in the flesh as seen below, nobody would expect otherwise!

Jesus Is The Lord

Colossians 2:9-10KJV
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

I was asking you for your response. Would you like a hint?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul makes that statement in regard to what he has already said. Paul is filled with sorrow knowing that not all of his kinsmen by ethnicity will not be saved. He thought if possible he would willingly give us his own eternity security to save them, because adoption, glory, the covenants, the law, and God's promises came through them. How? Because through Israel Christ would be born a Jew. Paul says just because not all of them are saved, it does not mean the Word of God is of no effect. Why? Because Israel according to the flesh (ethnicity) does not mean you are of Israel that shall be saved. Because eternal salvation is not dependent upon ethnicity, but is dependent upon faith alone. In vs 8 Paul proves this fact when he says the children of the flesh (ethnic Israel) and not the children of God. And only the children of the promise are counted for the SEED (Christ).

Romans 9:1-6 (KJV) I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Romans 9:8 (KJV) 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.

You are almost there. You skipped over an essential phrase.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your question has been answered, but you don't like the answer because it shows you have not rightly understood Paul.

I was asking WPM, unlike you, he hasn't answered yet. You are almost to the answer. You left out a key sentence.

 

[rwb]

You are almost there. You skipped over an essential phrase.

Well by all means keep me waiting, don't bother to tell me what you are hinting at. You might have guessed by now that I don't like playing this game of guess what I'm thinking!

 

[rwb]

I was asking WPM, unlike you, he hasn't answered yet. You are almost to the answer. You left out a key sentence.

I don't think he's very fond of mind games either!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Uhm. Nobody dies in the new heavens and new earth.

Right. But, Isaiah 65:20 clearly relates to the new heavens and new earth, so why do you not take what you said here into account when interpreting it? All of this is about the new heavens and new earth:

Isaiah 65:20 “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. 19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. 20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

What you're not understanding is that Isaiah was speaking figuratively here about eternity in a way that people back then could understand.

There is no death there at all. It's talking about the Millenial Kingdom which transpires before the new heavens and new earth.

So, when someone dies during this supposed future Millennial Kingdom, no one will mourn for them?

Isaiah 65:19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.

I assume you believe this verse, which obviously comes right before Isaiah 65:20, relates to the supposed future Millennial kingdom?

No more weeping and crying. Where else does scripture talk about that?

Revelation 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

John made it clear that at the point when there's no more mourning or crying there will also be no more death. Why wouldn't you take this into account when interpreting Isaiah 65:17-25? Surely, there will not be two new heavens and new earths, so we need to interpret Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-4 in such a way that doesn't make them contradict each other. You're not doing that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks. I think he has said that Jesus was/is God, but not fully God.

So I think that he would not agree that "Jesus is fully God".

He has made it clear that he does not believe that Jesus is fully God. He believes Jesus did not exist in any way, shape or form before He was born of the virgin Mary. But, how can someone be partially God? That's nonsense. God is eternal. So, if Jesus is God then He is eternal (has always existed and always will). And He is. God created the heavens and the earth. So, if Jesus is God then He created the heavens and the earth. And He did.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand your point, but don't overlook the fact that Paul continues to maintain his distinction between "my own people" and "the Gentiles."

So? Of course there was a distinction in a physical way, but Paul's focus in Romans 9-11 is spiritual.

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.

You're just not getting it. Paul was talking about making some of His fellow Israelites who had been hardened and blinded IN HIS DAY jealous because of the salvation of the Gentiles so that they too would want to be saved. And some of them were. This process of Gentile salvation making Israelites jealous and wanting to be saved as well has been going on for a long time now.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

This is nonsense of the highest order. You are blatantly twisting scripture to fit your doctrine and it's shameful and unacceptable. There is no basis whatsoever for thinking that Paul changed the subject in verse 25, regardless of whether or not a comma should be there. None. I just can't take you seriously when you repeatedly twist scripture like this.

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.

Was Paul amending and changing the Old Testament when he indicated that the promises God made to Abraham and his seed were made to Abraham and to Christ and extended to those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:16-29)? This is not clear in the Old Testament at all and, yet, this is what Paul taught. It seems that the way you look at things, you would have to conclude that Paul was amending or changing the Old Testament by doing that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's be honest, it doesn't really matter with him what the NT says, what he believes trumps what the inspired text says.

That is very clear. I have no respect for him whatsoever. He is a false teacher who has no regard for the NT whatsoever.

His heretical views on the deity of Christ are a case-in-point.

Agree. That says it all about him.

You articulate a potent irrefutable rebuttal, but he doesn't get it!

He doesn't want to 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.

I agree. So, why are we bothering with him? I'm not sure. I don't think I will for much longer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is as clear as mud. Instead of forcing your bias opinions into Romans 9:6, and expecting us to align with them, quote the question in the text. You foist something upon the text that is not being said or implied, to support your theology. I do not see your reasoning in (or implied in) the inspired text, and that is all that matters. Where is the question?

Talk about dancing around the question!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Oddly, I don't hear Paul asking a question. He makes a statement of fact. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". It seems so simple that even a child should be able to understand that Paul is making a strong argument against the opinion that ethnicity plays a role in who shall be saved.

Romans 9:6 (KJV) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

When you continue reading from there, it becomes even more clear.

Romans 9:7 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.

It's not even possible for Paul to have been more clear that one's ethnicity or nationality has absolutely nothing to do with being a child of God and part of the Israel of God of which not all physical descendants of Israel are part.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How can we expect Premils to grasp the deep truths pertaining to this subject when they cannot recognize the difference between a question and a statement?

I laughed when reading this, but it's true. A big part of their problem is a lack of attention to detail. Especially details given in the New Testament.