Absolutely false. I don't deny that Paul talks about national Israel in Romans 9:1-5, but then he explains in verses 6 to 8 that it's those who are the spiritual seed of Abraham who are counted in the Spiritual Israel of God which are those who are the children of God and of the promise.
I agree with this, but I don't agree with your conclusion because it doesn't make sense of Paul's argument.
He wanted to make sure that people realize that being a physical descendant of Israel and of Abraham is not what makes someone a child of God and part of Spiritual Israel. It's a spiritual entity he is talking about in Romans 9:6-8 and being part of it is based on spiritual things only. He made that very clear, but you still miss it because of your carnal focus on physical things.
You don't have any support for your conclusion that Paul is downplaying the importance of the physical in favor of the non-physical. Paul compares the two physical sons of Abraham and the two physical sons of Isaac. You want Paul to say, "every spiritual son of Abraham, including non-Israelites, are members of spiritual Israel. But since Paul only compares physical sons, you have no basis on which to draw your conclusion. You are forcing the text to say what you want to hear. Rather, Paul is defining spiritual Israel as those physically related to Jacob who are also spiritual sons of Abraham.
He's talking about two different kinds of people being resurrected to two different eternal destinies, but he's talking about one resurrection event, not two.
Show me.
He said the HOUR is coming when all the dead will be raised, not the HOURS that are coming.
You are ignoring the earlier verses where he talks about the disposition of his followers.
You are saying that John 5:24-27 is about the rapture of the church? Wrong.
Show me.
You truly have no spiritual discernment at all.
You truly have no rebuttal at all. If you did, you would give it.
In verses 24 and 25 here, Jesus is talking about a current reality.
Of course, he is. Yeah. And do you know what? If they currently have life, then they will not be included in the Final judgment.
What, no rebuttal again?
Do you actually think in 2 Peter 3:6-7 that Peter was comparing "the incineration of Palestine" to the flood in Noah's day?
No. Why would you think that Peter is comparing them? Peter's concern are those who will mock the idea that the Lord will return, based on the amount of time that has elapsed. Is it fair to conclude that someone isn't coming if their delay is overly long? Fair? Yes, but not always accurate. Delays can happen for countless reasons—bad traffic, miscommunication, unexpected emergencies. If the wait feels interminable, it's natural to think they might not show. But Peter points out that God has good reasons to delay destruction.
Peter doesn't compare the flood with the Day of the Lord. Like Jesus, Peter tells his readers that the Day of the Lord will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. But WHAT IS the day of the Lord. For that definition we examine the many passages of scripture, discussing the topic.
For instance, Malachi discusses the day of the Lord in chapter 4, saying that the Day of the Lord will be attended by one event that has two different outcomes depending on who you are. For those who fear the Lord, the Day of the Lord will be like the sun rising with healing in its wings. For those who are arrogantly evil, the Day of the Lord will come like a burning furnace and incinerate them.
The focus of that Day will be on Israel.
How am I not accounting for Romans 9:1-5?
You argue that Romans 9:6-8 describes the church, both Jew and Gentiles together. Your conclusion does square with Paul's opening thesis that "the adoption as sons" belongs to his kinsmen the Israelites. According to his thesis statements, he intends to prove how the word of God concerning the physical descendants of Israel has not failed. What is your answer? God wasn't speaking literally concerning physical descendants of Israel? What? Paul can simply make stuff up?
I see two Israels mentioned in verses 6 to 8 and you agreed with that. I'm not denying that he mentioned one of them in verses 1-5, but that doesn't change the fact that he mentions two of them in verses 6 to 8. The way I interpret verses 6 to 8 does not contradict anything he says in verses 1 to 5. So, this is just another in your long line of false claims about my view.
You see two distinct kinds of Israel; I see two distinct states of Israel.
I'm now convinced that you have never actually read Romans 9:6-8 carefully at all. You ignore where it says "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.".
I'm not ignoring that. I believe that, based on other statements made by Paul in the same context, he is being subtractive rather than additive. To illustrate this, we can create a Venn diagram with two overlapping circles. In one circle, we can place the descendants of Jacob, and in the other circle, we can place the spiritual sons of Abraham. The overlapping area represents Spiritual Israel.
Paul was clearly saying that being a physical descendant meant nothing in relation to what he was saying in that passage.
On the contrary, since he is focused on Israel as a group, then physical descent is important to his argument. Paul is saying that Spiritual Israel is a subset of the entire nation of Israel who happen to be spiritual sons of Abraham.
I do not lie. You repeatedly show your lack of spiritual discernment with every post you make.
You lie because you don't know me or anything about my spirituality. And you lie to yourself because you make yourself and your own ideas out to be the measure or standard of what is spiritually discerned. Get over yourself and deal with the facts.
No one who denies the deity of Christ has any spiritual discernment.
I would say the opposite.
The way you interpret John 5:24-27 shows further how lacking in spiritual discernment you are even beyond what you've already shown.
An argument filled with ad hominem attacks—where someone attacks the person instead of addressing the argument itself—reveals a lack of solid reasoning or valid points on their part. It's often a sign that they can't effectively counter the actual issue at hand, so they resort to discrediting or insulting the person making the argument.
This is nothing more than gibberish.
Same as above.
The fact of the matter is that the NT contradicts your understanding of the OT. But, you think you understand the OT better than the NT authors did.
On the contrary, I rely on the fact that the NT authors understood the OT better than I do. But I am speaking with regard to the method of interpretation. What should we conclude if we find that the NT authors seem to be saying something that is contrary to the OT?
A. The NT author, under the power of the Holy Spirit is allowed to propose a novel interpretation of the OT passage.
B. My interpretation of the NT author is incorrect, and I need help understanding him properly.
As an exegete of the scripture, my default position is 'B.' If the NT author appears to contract the OT or seems to have invented a novel understanding of the OT, then I have misunderstood the NT author. I take this approach because Jesus proved his case from the OT, and he said that the scriptures can't be broken. In other words, the scriptures never change, they are reliable, and they don't need to be proven.
Using scripture in an argument relies heavily on both parties agreeing on the interpretation and authority of that text. For instance, Jesus speaks to the Pharisees as if they share common ground. He often asks them, "Have you never read? " The question assumes that he and the Pharisees agree on the interpretation and authority of the text.
Hopefully, this clears things up. I often reject Amil arguments because they assume 'A', the OT alone is not authoritative, it must be interpreted by an Apostle.
That's a complete lie. Is it made up that Paul said Gentile believers are fellow heirs with Israelite believers of God's promises?
It is inaccurate. Paul says that we have been brought near by the blood of Christ and been made fellow citizens with the saints. The polis (city) in this context is not Israel, but another polis, with its own government, laws and customs. We were joined together into a "new anthropos." Paul is not suggesting that Gentiles became fellow citizens of Israel. He is suggesting that Jews and Gentiles became a whole new city.
