Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
7,658
2,625
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Israelites were multi-ethnic Jews and Gentiles.
The term "Israelite" can refer to several different concepts. Primarily, it identifies the natural-born descendants of Jacob. In another context, it refers to a citizen of the nation named after him. Individuals born to Jewish parents are considered Israelites by birth. Non-Jewish-born individuals can become part of the people of God through marriage or physical circumcision.

The controversial question during Paul's time was whether a person was required to join the people of God in order to benefit from God's promise to Jacob's children. Paul disagreed. He argued that an individual need not enter the people of God to benefit from God's promise of forgiveness and eternal life in Romans chapters one through eight.

Chapter 9 begins a new argument focused specifically on God's promise to Jacob's natural-born descendants (Deuteronomy 30:6). Since God promised to "circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants," then why hasn't he?

Paul interprets this question as a challenge to the validity of the gospel he preaches. If God does not grant the descendants of Jacob the "circumcision of the heart" as He promised, then how can we trust anything else Paul says regarding the Gentiles, to whom He did not make an explicit promise?

Paul spends three entire chapters explaining the answer.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
8,527
4,177
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Granted, the appellation "child of God" refers to those who are inwardly like God and spiritually transformed. However, the appellation "people of God" refers to the particular family whom God chose to serve him overtly among the rest of the world.

Your fight is with Scripture! Romans 9:6-13: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

This couldn't be clearer for those that have got eyes to see and ears to hear. It does not need explaining away to support anyone’s eschatological error.

What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving. One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.” Basically: national theocratic Israel was a political entity in which a believing spiritual remnant – true Israel – abode. It is only those Jews who belong to the remnant that are true Israelis in God’s eyes.

Jesus also exposed those who boast that they are Jews but who are not. He exposed them as those “which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9, 3:9). This demonstrates that biology alone is insufficient to class one as a real Jew. Natural Jews must be followers of Jesus Christ to be legitimate and acceptable spiritual Jews in God’s eyes. It is important that believers recognize the difference between national Israel and true Israel in both testaments or they may become confused with the unfolding of God’s plan in the New Testament.

Granted. However, Paul's focus in Romans 9 is on the seed of Jacob, which is a different subject.

He is defining who true Israel are. It is the opposite to what you promote.

Paul argues that faith has always been a sign of justification for both Jews and Gentiles. However, Romans 9 focuses on a promise God made to His kinsmen, the natural descendants of Jacob, and whether that promise has failed to be fulfilled. The relevant question is, "Why haven't the Jews entered the church?" as God promised they would.

Why didn't God circumcise their hearts as he promised so that they would enter the body of Christ?

Are you for real? The vast bulk of the early church were Jews. There have been countless Jews coming to Christ over this past 2000 years. There are many Jews today getting saved. They are being grafted into the good olive tree.

This shows how blinded you are to the truth with your Dispy error.

A Christian should never have to explain this to na fellow Christian. They should know it. But with your heretical denial of the deity of Christ, obviously anything goes!
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: covenantee

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
6,383
2,714
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Non-Jewish-born individuals can become part of the people of God through marriage or physical circumcision.
No. They became part of the remnant of God through entering into a faithful obedient covenant relationship with Him.

Today, they become part of the remnant of God through entering into a faithful obedient new covenant relationship with His Son.

Chapter 9 begins a new argument focused specifically on God's promise to Jacob's natural-born descendants (Deuteronomy 30:6). Since God promised to "circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants," then why hasn't he?
These would disagree with you:

 
  • Like
Reactions: WPM

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
8,527
4,177
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The term "Israelite" can refer to several different concepts. Primarily, it identifies the natural-born descendants of Jacob. In another context, it refers to a citizen of the nation named after him. Individuals born to Jewish parents are considered Israelites by birth. Non-Jewish-born individuals can become part of the people of God through marriage or physical circumcision.

The controversial question during Paul's time was whether a person was required to join the people of God in order to benefit from God's promise to Jacob's children. Paul disagreed. He argued that an individual need not enter the people of God to benefit from God's promise of forgiveness and eternal life in Romans chapters one through eight.

Chapter 9 begins a new argument focused specifically on God's promise to Jacob's natural-born descendants (Deuteronomy 30:6). Since God promised to "circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants," then why hasn't he?

Paul interprets this question as a challenge to the validity of the gospel he preaches. If God does not grant the descendants of Jacob the "circumcision of the heart" as He promised, then how can we trust anything else Paul says regarding the Gentiles, to whom He did not make an explicit promise?

Paul spends three entire chapters explaining the answer.
Today, if an individual wants to be part of true Israel, they do not need to become a citizen of ethnic Israel and be physically circumcised. No, they simply need to put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, receive His forgiveness and obtain eternal life and they are grafted into true believing Israel by way of the circumcision of their heart. It is here that they become His covenant children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
7,658
2,625
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What this is saying is, those who are not saved have no right to consider themselves as true Israel. The apostle here identifies two Israels; one elect and believing, the other lost and unbelieving.
You don't understand the main issue in this section. Paul admits that Jews are entering the church in Romans 11. The main issue in Romans 9 is a promise God made to Israel.

First here: Deuteronomy 30:6
Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Park here a little while and meditate on what Moses told Israel. One day, after Israel has suffered exile, and the curses, he will bring them back into the land and circumcise their hearts to love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul, so that they will live. In other words, God is going to perform a miracle, transforming them from stubborn rebels into contrite believers.

Second here: Jeremiah 31:33-34
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Not only will God circumcise their hearts, he will do this for "each man and his neighbor and each man his brother." This is what you are missing.

Once we are made aware of the promise Paul has in view, then we would never conclude that Paul speaks about two kinds of Israel: one natural, and one spiritual. His argument is based on the premise that one day God will cause natural Israel to become Spiritual Israel. At some time in the future, not only will God write his law on their hearts, he will circumcise their hearts such that they will not teach again, "Know the Lord" because they will all know him.

Paul is rhetorically asking whether that promise has failed. Why hasn't God done what he said he would do? That's the question. It isn't a matter of sorting out who among the Jews are circumcised of heart, because an essential aspect of the promise is the heart circumcision of every Jew.

Romans 9:6 For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

From our discussion, I am guessing that you hear Paul's statement above as if he is saying, "Jacob's descendants aren't the only people who will be included in God's promise to Israel." I hear it differently. What I hear is Paul saying, "God's promise to Israel will not include every descendant of Israel." See the difference?

I believe Paul is conveying the latter rather than the former because of his initial premise regarding the fact that salvation belongs to his kinsmen according to the flesh. This proposition, among others, serves as the foundation for the argument he aims to present. Given that the condition of his kinsmen is established as an initial premise, I am convinced that verse 9:6 means that "God’s promise to Israel (the premise) will not include every descendant of Israel."

One is true spiritual Israel (“the children of God”/“the children of the promise”), the other is unbelieving and merely “children of the flesh.”
The concept of belief is absent from the text. The subject matter of this text is God's choice. Paul offers this fact as proof that Election is God's choice and does not depend on features and aspects of the individual.
He is defining who true Israel are. It is the opposite to what you promote.
I don't know what you mean. That is I need help understanding your objection. In my view, Paul is not defining "true" Israel as you suggest. He is proving that the Israel of God's promise will not include every descendent of Jacob but only those individuals whom he has chosen.

Paul asserts a premise concerning his kinsmen: that salvation belongs to them. He intends to explain why God's promise to them hasn't failed. Spirituality isn't something to be proved. Rather, spirituality is the thing promised, and the promise of spirituality for Paul's kinsmen is the topic under examination. God promised to circumcise their hearts, so why didn't he?
Are you for real? The vast bulk of the early church were Jews. There have been countless Jews coming to Christ over this past 2000 years. There are many Jews today getting saved. They are being grafted into the good olive tree.
Paul's original proposition establishes, as given, that God has promised the good olive tree to "each man and his brother." Given that only a fraction of the Jews are coming to faith, does this mean that God's promise to "each man and his brother" has failed? Paul raises the issue because he sees it as a challenge to his gospel. It isn't enough to say that God is creating a "true Israel" because the promise specifies that each man and his brother will be included. But how can that be, since not every Jew's heart has been circumcised.
This shows how blinded you are to the truth with your Dispy error.

A Christian should never have to explain this to na fellow Christian. They should know it. But with your heretical denial of the deity of Christ, obviously anything goes!
Try making a valid argument.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
8,527
4,177
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You don't understand the main issue in this section. Paul admits that Jews are entering the church in Romans 11. The main issue in Romans 9 is a promise God made to Israel.

First here: Deuteronomy 30:6
Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Park here a little while and meditate on what Moses told Israel. One day, after Israel has suffered exile, and the curses, he will bring them back into the land and circumcise their hearts to love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul, so that they will live. In other words, God is going to perform a miracle, transforming them from stubborn rebels into contrite believers.

Second here: Jeremiah 31:33-34
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Not only will God circumcise their hearts, he will do this for "each man and his neighbor and each man his brother." This is what you are missing.

Once we are made aware of the promise Paul has in view, then we would never conclude that Paul speaks about two kinds of Israel: one natural, and one spiritual. His argument is based on the premise that one day God will cause natural Israel to become Spiritual Israel. At some time in the future, not only will God write his law on their hearts, he will circumcise their hearts such that they will not teach again, "Know the Lord" because they will all know him.

Paul is rhetorically asking whether that promise has failed. Why hasn't God done what he said he would do? That's the question. It isn't a matter of sorting out who among the Jews are circumcised of heart, because an essential aspect of the promise is the heart circumcision of every Jew.

Romans 9:6 For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

From our discussion, I am guessing that you hear Paul's statement above as if he is saying, "Jacob's descendants aren't the only people who will be included in God's promise to Israel." I hear it differently. What I hear is Paul saying, "God's promise to Israel will not include every descendant of Israel." See the difference?

I believe Paul is conveying the latter rather than the former because of his initial premise regarding the fact that salvation belongs to his kinsmen according to the flesh. This proposition, among others, serves as the foundation for the argument he aims to present. Given that the condition of his kinsmen is established as an initial premise, I am convinced that verse 9:6 means that "God’s promise to Israel (the premise) will not include every descendant of Israel."


The concept of belief is absent from the text. The subject matter of this text is God's choice. Paul offers this fact as proof that Election is God's choice and does not depend on features and aspects of the individual.

I don't know what you mean. That is I need help understanding your objection. In my view, Paul is not defining "true" Israel as you suggest. He is proving that the Israel of God's promise will not include every descendent of Jacob but only those individuals whom he has chosen.

Paul asserts a premise concerning his kinsmen: that salvation belongs to them. He intends to explain why God's promise to them hasn't failed. Spirituality isn't something to be proved. Rather, spirituality is the thing promised, and the promise of spirituality for Paul's kinsmen is the topic under examination. God promised to circumcise their hearts, so why didn't he?

Paul's original proposition establishes, as given, that God has promised the good olive tree to "each man and his brother." Given that only a fraction of the Jews are coming to faith, does this mean that God's promise to "each man and his brother" has failed? Paul raises the issue because he sees it as a challenge to his gospel. It isn't enough to say that God is creating a "true Israel" because the promise specifies that each man and his brother will be included. But how can that be, since not every Jew's heart has been circumcised.

Try making a valid argument.
  • To arrive at the ‘corporate position’ one has to totally ignore Paul’s overriding message of two types of Israeli in Romans 9–11 (and in the whole book of Romans). Throughout, he is constantly differentiating between Israelis that are blind and Israelis that are elect.
  • One also has to ignore the whole context and setting of Paul’s comments “all Israel shall be saved.” He uses the phrase immediately after demonstrating that the elect Israeli good olive only holds those Jews that are of the household of “faith.”
  • As Paul expands his argument on the salvation of his own kinsmen, and tells us that all Israel shall be saved, he does it within the vital context of a faithful believing remnant of Israelis. Many fail to see that Paul has already established that the believing element within the overall physical nation of Israel is “a remnant.”
  • Some also seem to overlook Paul’s supporting evidence from the Old Testament Scripture (in Isaiah 59:20) that shows that the people in view are a spiritual segment of the overall whole who put their faith in Christ and repent of their sin.
Paul declares in Romans 11:1-5:

Q. “I say then, Hath God cast away his people?”

A. “God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 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, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 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. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”

Dispensationalists misrepresent, or conveniently circumvent, the wording of this text with their fixation on the whole nation of natural Israel. They seem to imagine that to be considered faithful to Israel, God must be committed to the whole physical nation, even though it was apostate, rejected Christ and nailed Him to a tree. But that is not what Paul was pushing at or demanding. Paul actually takes such an inaccuracy head on. You can glean from his question at the opening of Romans 11 that he feels a real sense that the faithfulness of God is at stake. After all, the majority of his kinsmen had rejected their own Messiah. According to Paul, the evidence that God had not rejected Israel in his day is demonstrated by the fact that there was a notable remnant of believing Jews (including himself) that had accepted Christ and therefore embraced the new covenant arrangement.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
7,658
2,625
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No. They became part of the remnant of God through entering into a faithful obedient covenant relationship with Him.
You need to understand the distinctions we are discussing. The phrase "people of God" is not synonymous with "children of God" or "the remnant." These phrases mean different things depending on the context. We will fail to understand the word of God if we fail to come to terms with its meanings within the context in which they appear.

The term "remnant" means "the part that is left over", or "the fraction that remains". Paul discusses a remnant of Israel in Romans 11, where he quotes the Lord saying, "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." In that context Paul is focused on the people of God, which Paul defines in terms of his lineage; "For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." By this we understand that "the people of God" are descendants of Jacob and Paul finds himself among them.

Romans 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

This text partially addresses objections to Paul's gospel based on the claim that God has not circumcised the hearts of every man, his neighbor, or his brother. Critics argue that Paul's gospel is false because it portrays God as unfaithful and deceptive. However, Paul's response is that God is preserving a remnant "at the present time," suggesting that the promise to save every descendant of Jacob will be fulfilled in the future.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
7,658
2,625
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
  • To arrive at the ‘corporate position’ one has to totally ignore Paul’s overriding message of two types of Israeli in Romans 9–11 (and in the whole book of Romans).
It is not a matter of paying attention to a message of two types of Israel. Paul doesn't speak about two kinds of Israel. The only Israel in view is the one presented in his opening statement that the promise of salvation belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh.
  • Throughout, he is constantly differentiating between Israelis that are blind and Israelis that are elect.
I disagree. Paul discusses one Israel that is, at times, unwilling to hear the prophets, stubborn, and hard-hearted. He argues that a partial fulfillment doesn't indicate a failure of God to keep his promise to "each man, his neighbor, and his brother." This will take place in the future. At the present time, he is keeping a remnant for himself, which is why only some of the Jews are believing in Jesus Christ. There remains a partial hardening of Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Once that takes place then ALL Israel will be saved.

  • One also has to ignore the whole context and setting of Paul’s comments “all Israel shall be saved.” He uses the phrase immediately after demonstrating that the elect Israeli good olive only holds those Jews that are of the household of “faith.”
First, Israel is not the Olive Tree. Second, the phrase "all Israel shall be saved" is in the same context as another OT passage, which speaks about the exclusion of ungodly people from among Jacob's descendants. The prophecy appears in Isaiah, but it is described in Malachi 4, where he depicts a sun of healing rising. And at that time, those who fear the Lord will be saved, and those who are arrogantly evil will be burned up.
Dispensationalists misrepresent, or conveniently circumvent, the wording of this text with their fixation on the whole nation of natural Israel.
This is not true. First, If one should pay attention to the question at hand, "Did God reject his people?" then we understand that Paul is discussing the Jews as individuals, not Israel as a nation. His answer includes a personal testimony about himself and the fact that he is from the tribe of Benjamin. If God had rejected his people, then he wouldn't have saved Paul the Benjaminite.

Discussion of Israel as a nation begins later in chapter 11, where the argument is made that God neither rejected the Jewish people nor the nation of Israel. The nation transgressed and this transgression became riches for the Gentiles, but that transgression did not cause the nation to fall to it's destruction. God will honor his commitment to the Jews and their nation.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
7,658
2,625
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Today, if an individual wants to be part of true Israel, they do not need to become a citizen of ethnic Israel and be physically circumcised. No, they simply need to put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, receive His forgiveness and obtain eternal life and they are grafted into true believing Israel by way of the circumcision of their heart. It is here that they become His covenant children.
I disagree. Paul's supposition is that ethnic Israel will become true Israel according to God's promise. Gentiles don't enter into Israel, true or otherwise. Gentiles enter into the Body of Christ.
 

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
8,527
4,177
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I disagree. Paul's supposition is that ethnic Israel will become true Israel according to God's promise. Gentiles don't enter into Israel, true or otherwise. Gentiles enter into the Body of Christ.
The pattern on this thread has been you ignoring passage after passage that explicitly says the opposite to what you are claiming, and you responding with your own faulty private opinions.

The bottom line is, your opinions count for nought. The Word of God refutes and exposes your teaching. I refer you back to each Scripture, that you have ignored over this whole thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
6,383
2,714
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You need to understand the distinctions we are discussing. The phrase "people of God" is not synonymous with "children of God" or "the remnant." These phrases mean different things depending on the context. We will fail to understand the word of God if we fail to come to terms with its meanings within the context in which they appear.

The term "remnant" means "the part that is left over", or "the fraction that remains". Paul discusses a remnant of Israel in Romans 11, where he quotes the Lord saying, "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." In that context Paul is focused on the people of God, which Paul defines in terms of his lineage; "For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." By this we understand that "the people of God" are descendants of Jacob and Paul finds himself among them.

Romans 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.

This text partially addresses objections to Paul's gospel based on the claim that God has not circumcised the hearts of every man, his neighbor, or his brother. Critics argue that Paul's gospel is false because it portrays God as unfaithful and deceptive. However, Paul's response is that God is preserving a remnant "at the present time," suggesting that the promise to save every descendant of Jacob will be fulfilled in the future.
You've ignored the testimony of the Messianic Jews.

They've experienced the circumcision of their own hearts through their experience of the New Covenant in Christ in their own lives.

Why have you ignored them?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WPM

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
6,383
2,714
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I disagree. Paul's supposition is that ethnic Israel will become true Israel according to God's promise. Gentiles don't enter into Israel, true or otherwise. Gentiles enter into the Body of Christ.
Your zionist racialization is a bankrupt vacuity both Scripturally and scientifically.

Genetically, you and I and everyone on the planet are both Jew and Gentile, because after thousands of years of natural genetic dispersion and diffusion, Jewish DNA is ubiquitous throughout humanity, and Gentile DNA is ubiquitous throughout humanity.

The Abrahamic bloodline has been mixed from the time of Jacob, who was the offspring of Isaac and Rebekah, a Gentile.

This is consistent with the nature of God, who is not a racist. Acts 10:34,35

Nor can He be contorted into one, despite your desperate efforts.

Corroborated empirically by the Jewish community itself (identified today by culture and religion, not by genetics).

Abraham lineage
DNA Tests Could Fulfill God’s Promise to Abraham by Revealing Millions of Jews. But How Jewish is Jewish Enough?
Israel in all of Us? Research finds 'Jewish genes' in unusual places
Jewish-Roots Arabs in Israel
Tracing the lost tribes to Jewish communities in Africa
Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel? - CNN
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/...-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/...her-claims-proof-of-tribe-of-Ephraim-in-India
https://www.jta.org/2013/05/23/life...bush-bani-israel-tribe-claims-jewish-heritage

Demonstrated mathematically.

Example of ancestral genetic ubiquity:

Charlemagne’s DNA and Our Universal Royalty

BY CARL ZIMMER

Nobody in my past was hugely famous, at least that I know of. I vaguely recall that an ancestor of mine who shipped over on the Mayflower distinguished himself by falling out of the ship and having to get fished out of the water. He might be notable, I guess, but hardly famous. It is much more fun to think that I am a bloodline descendant of Charlemagne. And in 1999, Joseph Chang gave me permission to think that way.

Chang was not a genealogist who had decided to make me his personal project. Instead, he is a statistician at Yale who likes to think of genealogy as a mathematical problem. When you draw your genealogy, you make two lines from yourself back to each of your parents. Then you have to draw two lines for each of them, back to your four grandparents. And then eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents, and so on. But not so on for very long. If you go back to the time of Charlemagne, forty generations or so, you should get to a generation of a trillion ancestors. That’s about two thousand times more people than existed on Earth when Charlemagne was alive.

The only way out of this paradox is to assume that our ancestors are not independent of one another. That is, if you trace their ancestry back, you loop back to a common ancestor. We’re not talking about first-cousin stuff here–more like twentieth-cousin. This means that instead of drawing a tree that fans out exponentially, we need to draw a web-like tapestry.

In a paper he published in 1999 [pdf], Chang analyzed this tapestry mathematically. If you look at the ancestry of a living population of people, he concluded, you’ll eventually find a common ancestor of all of them. That’s not to say that a single mythical woman somehow produced every European by magically laying a clutch of eggs. All this means is that as you move back through time, sooner or later some of the lines in the genealogy will cross, meeting at a single person.

As you go back further in time, more of those lines cross as you encounter more common ancestors of the living population. And then something really interesting happens. There comes a point at which, Chang wrote, “all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals.”

In 2002, the journalist Steven Olson wrote an article in the Atlantic about Chang’s work. To put some empirical meat on the abstract bones of Chang’s research, Olson considered a group of real people–living Europeans.

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

Suddenly, my pedigree looked classier: I am a descendant of Charlemagne. Of course, so is every other European. By the way, I’m also a descendant of Nefertiti. And so are you, and everyone else on Earth today. Chang figured that out by expanding his model from living Europeans to living humans, and getting an estimate of 3400 years instead of a thousand for the all-ancestor generation.

Things have changed a lot in the fourteen years since Chang published his first paper on ancestry. Scientists have amassed huge databases of genetic information about people all over the world. These may not be the same thing as a complete genealogy of the human race, but geneticists can still use them to tackle some of the same questions that intrigued Chang.

Recently, two geneticists, Peter Ralph of the University of Southern California and Graham Coop of the University of California at Davis, decided to look at the ancestry of Europe. They took advantage of a compilation of information about 2257 people from across the continent. Scientists had examined half a million sites in each person’s DNA, creating a distinctive list of genetic markers for each of them.

You can use this kind of genetic information to make some genealogical inferences, but you have to know what you’re dealing with. Your DNA is not a carbon copy of your parents’. Each time they made eggs or sperm, they shuffled the two copies of each of their chromosomes and put one in the cell. Just as a new deck gets more scrambled the more times you shuffle it, chromosomes get more shuffled from one generation to the next.

This means that if you compare two people’s DNA, you will find some chunks that are identical in sequence. The more closely related people are, the bigger the chunks you’ll find. This diagram shows how two first cousins share a piece of DNA that’s identical by descent (IBD for short).

Ralph and Coop identified 1.9 million of these long shared segments of DNA shared by at least two people in their study. They then used the length of each segment to estimate how long ago it arose from a common ancestor of the living Europeans.

Their results, published today in PLOS Biology, both confirm Chang’s mathematical approach and enrich it. Even within the past thousand years, Ralph and Coop found, people on opposite sides of the continent share a lot of segments in common–so many, in fact, that it’s statistically impossible for them to have gotten them all from a single ancestor. Instead, someone in Turkey and someone in England have to share a lot of ancestors. In fact, as Chang suspected, the only way to explain the DNA is to conclude that everyone who lived a thousand years ago who has any descendants today is an ancestor of every European. Charlemagne for everyone!

If you compare two people in Turkey, you’ll find bigger shared segments of DNA, which isn’t surprising. Since they live in the same country, chances are they have more recent ancestors, and more of them. But there is a rich, intriguing pattern to the number of shared segments among Europeans. People across Eastern Europe, for example, have a larger set of shared segments than people from within single countries in Western Europe. That difference may be the signature of a big expansion of the Slavs.

Ralph and Coop’s study may provide a new tool for reconstructing the history of humans on every continent.

---

How does God distinguish genetic Jews from genetic Jews?

It matters not one whit.

God has only two covenant criteria.

Two spiritual genes.

Faith and obedience.

Abraham's Spiritual DNA.

And nothing else.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rwb and WPM

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
7,658
2,625
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The pattern on this thread has been you ignoring passage after passage that explicitly says the opposite to what you are claiming, and you responding with your own faulty private opinions.

The bottom line is, your opinions count for nought. The Word of God refutes and exposes your teaching. I refer you back to each Scripture, that you have ignored over this whole thread.
I take it you have no answer to what I am saying?
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
7,658
2,625
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your zionist racialization is a bankrupt vacuity both Scripturally and scientifically.
Your labels are incorrect and obscure the issue.
Genetically, you and I and everyone on the planet are both Jew and Gentile, because after thousands of years of natural genetic dispersion and diffusion, Jewish DNA is ubiquitous throughout humanity, and Gentile DNA is ubiquitous throughout humanity.
This is not true. First of all, who said anything about DNA? I never did. God deals with families. Second, Paul's writings contain many statements about Jews and Gentiles. Many of his statements recognize the difference between Jews and Gentiles.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
6,383
2,714
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Your labels are incorrect and obscure the issue.

This is not true. First of all, who said anything about DNA? I never did. God deals with families. Second, Paul's writings contain many statements about Jews and Gentiles. Many of his statements recognize the difference between Jews and Gentiles.
Did you know that Jacob was both Jew and Gentile?

Have you ever heard of DNA?

Who created DNA?

So you don't think DNA has anything to do with Jews and Gentiles? :laughing:

What planet are you on? :laughing:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WPM

WPM

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2022
8,527
4,177
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You don't understand the main issue in this section. Paul admits that Jews are entering the church in Romans 11. The main issue in Romans 9 is a promise God made to Israel.

First here: Deuteronomy 30:6
Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Park here a little while and meditate on what Moses told Israel. One day, after Israel has suffered exile, and the curses, he will bring them back into the land and circumcise their hearts to love the Lord their God with all their heart and soul, so that they will live. In other words, God is going to perform a miracle, transforming them from stubborn rebels into contrite believers.

Second here: Jeremiah 31:33-34
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Not only will God circumcise their hearts, he will do this for "each man and his neighbor and each man his brother." This is what you are missing.

Once we are made aware of the promise Paul has in view, then we would never conclude that Paul speaks about two kinds of Israel: one natural, and one spiritual. His argument is based on the premise that one day God will cause natural Israel to become Spiritual Israel. At some time in the future, not only will God write his law on their hearts, he will circumcise their hearts such that they will not teach again, "Know the Lord" because they will all know him.

Paul is rhetorically asking whether that promise has failed. Why hasn't God done what he said he would do? That's the question. It isn't a matter of sorting out who among the Jews are circumcised of heart, because an essential aspect of the promise is the heart circumcision of every Jew.

Romans 9:6 For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

From our discussion, I am guessing that you hear Paul's statement above as if he is saying, "Jacob's descendants aren't the only people who will be included in God's promise to Israel." I hear it differently. What I hear is Paul saying, "God's promise to Israel will not include every descendant of Israel." See the difference?

I believe Paul is conveying the latter rather than the former because of his initial premise regarding the fact that salvation belongs to his kinsmen according to the flesh. This proposition, among others, serves as the foundation for the argument he aims to present. Given that the condition of his kinsmen is established as an initial premise, I am convinced that verse 9:6 means that "God’s promise to Israel (the premise) will not include every descendant of Israel."


The concept of belief is absent from the text. The subject matter of this text is God's choice. Paul offers this fact as proof that Election is God's choice and does not depend on features and aspects of the individual.

I don't know what you mean. That is I need help understanding your objection. In my view, Paul is not defining "true" Israel as you suggest. He is proving that the Israel of God's promise will not include every descendent of Jacob but only those individuals whom he has chosen.

Paul asserts a premise concerning his kinsmen: that salvation belongs to them. He intends to explain why God's promise to them hasn't failed. Spirituality isn't something to be proved. Rather, spirituality is the thing promised, and the promise of spirituality for Paul's kinsmen is the topic under examination. God promised to circumcise their hearts, so why didn't he?

Paul's original proposition establishes, as given, that God has promised the good olive tree to "each man and his brother." Given that only a fraction of the Jews are coming to faith, does this mean that God's promise to "each man and his brother" has failed? Paul raises the issue because he sees it as a challenge to his gospel. It isn't enough to say that God is creating a "true Israel" because the promise specifies that each man and his brother will be included. But how can that be, since not every Jew's heart has been circumcised.

Try making a valid argument.
Romans 9-11 refutes your whole thesis, so you are forced to go back to the OT to try and rescue your argument by twisting what the prophets are saying. Unfortunately, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth with your argument. In one breath you are arguing for a future wholesale national salvation of all ethnic Israel, in the next, you are arguing: "God's promise to Israel will not include every descendant of Israel." You cannot have it both ways.

Many thought salvation was by Israeli birthright. They were deceived. They were blind. That is what this is teaching. They did not get it. But not all Israel were/are blind. Sadly, the majority were/are, as in most nations. But part of Israel were/are elect. Part of Israel were/are the remnant according to election. Part of Israel were/are enlightened.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee