Jewish identification

[RND]

They say that there are bugs in the system that cause the approval of moderator message. That is the answer I've gotten from the mod.

Thanks for the clarification. Good info to have.

Notrash I was wondering if you had any particular knowledge of the origins of futurism and preterism?

I have found that most that solidly hold on to these two POV's have little knowledge of the origins of these teachings or outright dismiss the clear historical origins of these teachings.

The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism

A History of the Foundation of Futurism and Preterism



Historicism, Futurism, Preterism

 

[Notrash]

Thanks for the clarification. Good info to have.

Notrash I was wondering if you had any particular knowledge of the origins of futurism and preterism?

I have found that most that solidly hold on to these two POV's have little knowledge of the origins of these teachings or outright dismiss the clear historical origins of these teachings.

The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism

A History of the Foundation of Futurism and Preterism



Historicism, Futurism, Preterism

Yes, I have reviewed futurism, historicism and preterism rather thoroughly. Historcism has similar claims to pretertism, but it believes that the olivet discourse is split between the subject of the end of the age of law and the end of the earth. It also then believes and promotes that Revelation is similarly split somewhere in the middle of Revelation. Some historicists even promote that Revelation was to be progressively fulfilled during the popes of the church who would have been the antichrist and/or beast of Revelation. 7th day Adventists and some reformed groups hold this perspective. 7th dayers even had figured out the end of the days of Daniel by using a day/yr principle. Their system took a huge hit when the rapture or end of the earth didn't happen in the late 1800's.

Although I think it is true that the Catholic church may have promoted futurism and pretertism to attempt to sway the reformers opinion from focusing on the Catholic church as the beast, this information does not neccessarily prove that the beliefs of the reformers were correct. The reformers were correct though in attempting and succeeding to get the bible published and distributed througout Europe. They aslo succeeded in stopping the censorship of reading the bible that had created the dark ages and that fueled the abuses of the Catholic hierarchy. The Catholic church was truly acting as a "beast" in a political/religious manner, but weather or not it was "the beast" that was described in Rev agains partly depends on the date of authorship.

Eusebius of Cesaria was likely a pretertist in his views of the Olivet discourse. And Clement of Rome as the 3rd or 4th bishop of Rome noted that through Paul, the Gospel of the kingdom of God had been preached to the 'whole earth' thus fulfilling Matt 24:14 and allowign for "the end" to come.

I had at one time felt antagonistic towards pretertism due to the historicist website even before I knew much about it. I learned much about futurism through the historicist website but they never really broke down objection to Pretertism other than saying that it was promoted by the jesuits to counter the reformers accusations towards the Catholic church.

Weather the historicist or the pretertist perspective is to be respected rest partly upon the dating of the book of Revelations. There is questionable evidence on both dates, but under scrutiny most of the references to the later date stem from references to Iraneous' writings which could have easily been mistranlated or misunderstood.

I used to spend alot of time at historicist.org, but I spend more at pretertist archive.com lately. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Administrative/index.html

The other perspective I have is that all of the prophecies in Daniel come to a close along with the end of the age of the old covenant. The phrase 'time of the end' is used several times in Daniel and in context it seems to be referring to the time of the end of that particular vision. In other words, the understanding of the vision was to happen when it's fulfillment was near or completed. Most every one of the visions and propheices came to fulfillment at the end of the age of law, during it's fullfillment in (Jesus), the abolition of the old covenant, and the 'end of the indignation" (animal sacrifice? and other indignations) even to the desolation of Jerusalem as prophecied in Dan 9:26,27. That Jesus refered to the desolation that was to happen at the end of the prophecy of 70 weeks indicates that Jesus was saying that the time of the end of that prophecy was nearing. The seal of Daniel's prophecies was confirmingly being opened by Jesus for their time was at hand.

That much of Revelation uses some of the words and images of Daniel is even yet another reason to consider that most of revelation was referring to things that would soon occur in Jerusalem as the age of the old covenant came to a close and the favor was granted to the saints of the most high as the persecutions of Nero stopped and then as they were escorted out of Jerusalem before it fell. (Dan 7)

Interestingly also, John was told to not seal up the book of Revelation, because it's fulfillment was 'at hand' and near.

Currently, my perspective is that the olivet discourse, Danial, and most of Revelation are all fulfilled...... BUT since the mosaic covenant and the Israeli nation were types of so much pertaining to Christ...... I would not rule out a similar scenario on a world wide political/spiritual scale. But neither would I insist that it were to happen at all, let alone in our lifetime. Thus we as beleivers fight with the Spritual Armor of Eph 6 in our own battle of Armagheddon as we still seek to offer our lives rationally as living sacrifices to 'his will'; wash our robes in his blood and seek to remain unstained from the world. (and many other seeks).

I think also, as Isaiah 59 states, out of that which is crushed, a Viper shall arise.... the political/religious/financial lordships of the Roman Empire era that approved and carried out the Christian persecutions did not neccessarliy stop or die off, but eventually remade themselves in the black popes and especially talmudic Judaism. So it is no wonder that the historists viewed the pope and the Catholic church as "the beast" and associated parts of Revelation as pertaining to the Church.

It would not be unlike the Creator for him to allow and use the teaching of the Catholic Church and their pretertist interpretation to rekindle that perspective even though the Catholic Church was trying to disuade focus on themselves as the beast. They primarily had political and financial motives in mind, not theological truths. Although these political and financial motives would belong to 'beasts', it does not dictate or prove that the Catholic church is "the beast" of Revelation.

 

[RND]

Thanks for your thoughts Notrash. I obviously come from a "historical" perspective when it comes to viewing and understanding scripture. After all, to me anyway, history is simply "His Story."

 

[Notrash]

Thanks for your thoughts Notrash. I obviously come from a "historical" perspective when it comes to viewing and understanding scripture. After all, to me anyway, history is simply "His Story."

Yes, I was expecting so much, and that is why I offered my transistion from historist leaning towards pretertist, and offered the pretertist archive website for you to consider. Again, Contextual reading including the context of the covenants is of great importance. I read much about the 3 tiered crown of the pope and the name "vicar, son of God" as being the number 666. There is little doubt the vatican is in kahoots with a NWO agenda as is evident from the layout of the front yard of the vatican and the obilisk, BUT I still don't think this would have neccessarily been what Revelation was referring to by the Beast.

There is also a possibility of a dual or even 'continual' fulfillment ...... or even a possibility that some of these names and crowns and colors used by the papacy that are often refered to by the historicist applicaton could be intentional to draw attention to itself and away from other things.

Prophecy that remains unfulfilled for several centuries does not allow the giver of the prophecy to be glorified as forseeing and being able to bring about the message he gives to the prophet. And that is the goal of Prophecy.

History as 'his story' is a good phrase, and we are in a time when our lives should be "His story" as we seek to walk in submission his living and active will for our lives.

I didn't really study either pretertist perspective put out by the Catholic church, but one says that the Revelation primarily was fulfilled by 410 AD and another by the end of the first century.

Take note that there would be Historicist and Historical Pretertist thoughtlines.

HISTORICAL PRETERISM (HP) -
A) Umbrella term covering all those who believe that only a slight amount of Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled in the early centuries of the Christian era. Determined by looking at where authors find a "transition" from the past to the future using the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24/25 and the Apocalypse of John. B) This class has roots dating back to the first century, such as in the writings of Barnabus and Clement, and finds greater development in the writings of Justin Martyr and Eusebius.The Catholic and Orthodox churches maintained HP through the Middle Ages. Today's contemporary forms were largely developed in the writings of Calvin, Luther, Grotius and Lightfoot. C) Teaches that some of the Bible's eschatology was fulfilled by AD70, but that a large portion is yet to be fulfilled at the "last day." Transitions in the Middle of Matthew 24, or in the Middle of the Apocalypse of John.


And many, many glimpses of pretertist views pop up well before the counter-reformation.

"O"One commentary, an Irish Book of Questions on the Gospels, written about 725, interpreted Christ's coming in Matthew 24 in light of the Judean war, as a coming in judgment through the Roman armies"

Thus Pretertism doesnt' seem to have as strong a connection to the counter-reformation as futurism does. And there are those who say that futurism has connections to the early writings also, but I tend to think that it is related to the Chilaism of the Pharisaic group who desired rule.

Here is even a quote from Iraneous who uses a reference to an often quoted verse from Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 that is often associated with a future millenial kingdom and a time of peace under Israel's leadership and a return to old covenant ways. Iraneous attributes it to the Christian kingdom.

175: Irenaeus - Against Heresies "the temple constructed of stones was indeed then rebuilt (for as yet that law was observed which had been made upon tables of stone), yet no new covenant was given, but they used the Mosaic law until the coming of the Lord; but from the Lord's advent, the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight."

Take care.

 

[Notrash]

I look forward to your word study on 'fullness' and lexiconal research of 'number' and also your further interaction on Dan 7:27 in another thread.

This is a bump for LDG.

 

[Notrash]

I look forward to your word study on 'fullness' and lexiconal research of 'number' and also your further interaction on Dan 7:27 in another thread.

 

[Notrash]

I look forward to your word study on 'fullness' and lexiconal research of 'number' and also your further interaction on Dan 7:27 in another thread.

Bump for LDG to study the meaning of the word "fullness" in Rom 11:25 and to show why it should be accurately translated 'full number" when only 10 verses earlier "fullness" is with the meaning of fullness and riches in Christ.

And your continued discusson and answers are requested as to when and where it is allowed in Daniel 7 or any of his visions, that Israel as a genetic group, a talmudic religion or a national/political group will find favor in the kingdom and dominion of God?
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47071398&postcount=21

But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47071398&postcount=21

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Bump for LDG to study the meaning of the word "fullness" in Rom 11:25 and to show why it should be accurately translated 'full number" when only 10 verses earlier "fullness" is with the meaning of fullness and riches in Christ.

And your continued discusson and answers are requested as to when and where it is allowed in Daniel 7 or any of his visions, that Israel as a genetic group, a talmudic religion or a national/political group will find favor in the kingdom and dominion of God?
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47071398&postcount=21

I look forward to your word study on 'fullness' and lexiconal research of 'number' and also your further interaction on Dan 7:27 in another thread.

This is a bump for LDG.

Good grief Notrash, you could have easily just PMed me instead of repeatedly posting in this thread.

Again, you are using a version that translates spiritual fullness as "full number" when the word is exactly the same as used in verse 12 as fullness. It shows that some modern translations translate to itching ears.
Your previous lack of acknowledgement of this error also shows your unwillingness to accept or research this aspect of the problem. You continue to proclaim that this verse means "full number' when it does not.
Please do a word study on the greek for 'fullness' and show me how it is able to be translated as "full number". Do a lexicon search for the word 'number' and notice that it is not found in Rom 11:25.

Sure we can do a word study. But first its an erroneous and naive assumption on your part that every English word is supposed to have a corresponding singular Greek word. Second, its also erroneous for you to think that a Greek word has only one meaning to be translated into English. Greek words have a range of meanings, and its easy to see that the KJV or any other English version has translated the same Greek word into a variety of different English words.

But you don't just question whether the Greek word plaroma should be translated "full number" - you actually deny it. Lets see what the Greek experts have said.

The most authoritative Greek lexicon is:
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (also abbreviated as BAGD). BAGD provides a range of meanings for the Greek word, and it includes specific examples that the editors were confident in providing. In BAGD on page 672, under the Greek word plaroma, #3 it lists Romans 11:25 - "full number."

Another good Greek lexicon is:
Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. It has this entry:
59.32 under plaroma - a total quantity, with emphasis upon completeness - 'full number, full measure, fullness, completeness, totality.' [Rom 11:25 in Greek] 'until the complete number of the Gentiles comes (to God)'

For those who don't know Greek, Colin Brown's The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology provides some insight into the Greek under the English entries. In Vol 1, page 739 under "fulness" - it lists Rom 11:25 "full number."

Certainly more could be cited, including technical commentaries on Romans, but the above three are sufficient enough to show Greek experts support Rom 11:25 plaroma as translated as "full number" - and that they consider it the best option.

Your previous lack of acknowledgement of this error also shows your unwillingness to accept or research this aspect of the problem.

Its actually up to you to show that its an "error." I've shown my willingness to research it. And I've shown that Greek experts don't regard it as an "error."

You continue to proclaim that this verse means "full number' when it does not.

As I said before, its up to you to back up your claim here.

Because of your repeated postings and the things you said, you think its a very important issue. So I'm going to hold your feet to the fire on this one, Notrash. So address it.


LDG

 

[Notrash]

Misdefining words is a very important issue. And especially important in this passage. I do not buy the part about Greek being a majical language that can change word meanings and definitions mid sentence. Words by definition have relatively specific meanings. Definitions of words can be clarified from seeing how it is used in other sentences.

Mat 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Mar 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.
Mar 8:20And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
Jhn 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.
Rom 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.
1Cr 10:26 For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
1Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:
Eph 1:23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Col 1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Please tell me which of these other verses in the new testament can be translated full number and make the same sense in it's context . I'll assume that you'll agree with the obvious answer being NONE.

Lets give it a try:
Jhn 1:16And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Jhn 1:16 And of his full number have all we received, and grace for grace.

Hmmm, Doesn't seem to make sense.

All three of your lexicons and greek experts use full number in the Rom 11:25 passage only. They are making an exception to the other definitions. Thus they are re-define the word by their interpretation or others interpretation and demands upon that passage. If their interpretation is incorrect (and there is no basis for it) , their definition is also incorrect.

Only 12 verses earlier in verse 12, Paul contrasts fullness againsts their fall and their being diminished.

Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles (nations); how much more their fulness?

Three verses after vs 12 in vers 15 as if to explain his meaning of riches and fullness, the writer says.

For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?

Here 'fullness' is compared as "life from the dead"

Here below are some of the greek words that would have been added to Pleroo or some other cousin of Pleroma if it were to mean "full number".

G705arithmeō ä-rēth-me'-ō number
G706arithmos ä-rēth-mo's number
G2674katarithmeō kä-tä-rēth-me'-ō number
G3049logizomai lo-gē'-zo-mī think, impute, reckon, count, account, suppose, reason, number, misc
G3793ochlos o'-khlos people, multitude, press, company, number of people, number
G4785sygkatapsēphizomai sün-kä-tä-psā-fē'-zo-mī number

Here in chapter 9, is an example of using number to refer to a race. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number (arithmos) of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Back to Romans 11, Paul is not making an ESCHATOLOGICAL distinction between Jew/Gentile. He has already unified them in Christ in chapter 9.
(9:23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

He is saying that those remaining unbelieving judahites in 55 AD have not been irrevocably cut off, but that some of them were planned to be provoked to jealous unto salvation by the salvation and 'fullness' of the nations which has come in begining with Cornelius, just as Moses prophecied. Rom 10:19 is one of the themes of Romans 11.

Romans 10:19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

This understanding is very well supported by the CONTEXTUAL summary verses of 30-32,
30 For as you (individual's of primarily non-jewish descent) were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. (now since the fullness of the nations has come in beginning with Cornelius as Moses prophecied, as Paul states in Rom 10:19) 32 For God has committed them all (all nations) to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. (people of all nations)

We've already touched on the problems and wrongness of taking verses from their contextual meanings to make or support doctines in discussing Romans 9:4. I'd invite you to consider the post at
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7243209 as a contextual understanding of Rom 11:25.

So you can believe only the lexiconers who have defined words to fit their desired or popular interpretations, or you can use sound inductive study skills and rely on the Holy spirit and your God given common sense to come to the meaning of the original intent within it's context.

The Ball is back in your court, and holding you to the fire.
1. From any of the root words, (since pleroma is not a root word) show were "fullness" by itself refers to a number or a numerically counted group or thing, or
2. show where it can be tranlated "full number" in any other new testament usage and keep the same meaning.
3. Acknowledge that 'full number' is a mistranslation and alters the meaning of the original intent.

Still looking for ward to your response from Dan 7:14, 18 and 27.

NotRash
------------------------------------------------------------------
The word for gentiles and nation are the same greek word "ethnos".

Gentiles 93, nation 64, heathen 5, people 2

1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Misdefining words is a very important issue. And especially important in this passage. I do not buy the part about Greek being a majical language that can change word meanings and definitions mid sentence.

Sorry Notrash, what you are really calling "magical" is the collective views of expert Greek scholars.

Please tell me which of these other verses in the new testament can be translated full number and make the same sense in it's context . I'll assume that you'll agree with the obvious answer being NONE.

Sorry Notrash, You think to force the meaning of a word through a naive "plug and play" approach to Greek. No Greek scholar will buy that. Your string of verses are just a rabbit trail. They say absolutely nothing about Rom 11:25. You throw around the term "context" - but its clear you just don't know what it means.

All three of your lexicons and greek experts use full number in the Rom 11:25 passage only. They are making an exception to the other definitions.

So you are claiming to know more about the Greek than the Greek scholars themselves? Sorry, no one is going to buy that...

Thus they are re-define the word by their interpretation or others interpretation and demands upon that passage. If their interpretation is incorrect (and there is no basis for it) , their definition is also incorrect.

Bottom line is we have a self-proclaimed expert who is making blind assertions against numerous Greek scholars, commentators, and references that he has never even read.

So you can believe only the lexiconers who have defined words to fit their desired or popular interpretations, or you can use sound inductive study skills and rely on the Holy spirit and your God given common sense to come to the meaning of the original intent within it's context.

That's a classic false dilemma: either believe the "lexiconers" or believe "Notrash." Sorry Notrash, we will pass on your implied Greek scholar conspiracy. Its obvious that your anti-dispensationalism drives your exegesis, because there are many non-dispensational Greek scholars who interpret Rom 11:25 plaroma as "full number."

The Ball is back in your court, and holding you to the fire.
1. From any of the root words, (since pleroma is not a root word) show were "fullness" by itself refers to a number or a numerically counted group or thing, or
2. show where it can be tranlated "full number" in any other new testament usage and keep the same meaning.
3. Acknowledge that 'full number' is a mistranslation and alters the meaning of the original intent.

Sorry Notrash, I've already shown that Greek scholars in the top Greek references translate it as "full number." I could have even cited more, but the three I cited are more than sufficient to contradict your claims.

And then you implicitly claimed that you know Greek better than these Greek scholars and references. But go ahead and marginalize your own views, Notrash - you have my pity. If a person arrogantly claims the moon is made of cheese, then I don't need to waste my time to prove it isn't. I just walk away.

Still looking for ward to your response from Dan 7:14, 18 and 27.

There is no reason to reply if you marginalize your own views beyond any real dialogue.


LDG

 

[Notrash]

Sorry Notrash, what you are really calling "magical" is the collective views of expert Greek scholars.

Sorry Notrash, You think to force the meaning of a word through a naive "plug and play" approach to Greek. No Greek scholar will buy that. Your string of verses are just a rabbit trail. They say absolutely nothing about Rom 11:25. You throw around the term "context" - but its clear you just don't know what it means.

So you are claiming to know more about the Greek than the Greek scholars themselves? Sorry, no one is going to buy that...

Bottom line is we have a self-proclaimed expert who is making blind assertions against numerous Greek scholars, commentators, and references that he has never even read.

That's a classic false dilemma: either believe the "lexiconers" or believe "Notrash." Sorry Notrash, we will pass on your implied Greek scholar conspiracy. Its obvious that your anti-dispensationalism drives your exegesis, because there are many non-dispensational Greek scholars who interpret Rom 11:25 plaroma as "full number."

Sorry Notrash, I've already shown that Greek scholars in the top Greek references translate it as "full number." I could have even cited more, but the three I cited are more than sufficient to contradict your claims.

And then you implicitly claimed that you know Greek better than these Greek scholars and references. But go ahead and marginalize your own views, Notrash - you have my pity. If a person arrogantly claims the moon is made of cheese, then I don't need to waste my time to prove it isn't. I just walk away.

All these responses together are saying that you view the lexicons or dictionaries as "infallible" and authoratative when the dictionaries themselves use the interpreters added words in their definitions. It is a cyclical error. "Greek scholars' are just human beings and are not immune to error and most likely use other earlier dictionaries and lexicons in their own works. Once an 'error' get's into the batch of dough, it spreads and repeats itself. Take the test of defining the root words to see if there is any indication of a 'number' of people in any of the roots.

There are right answers and wrong answers on many questions. 2+2=4 is a right answer; 2+2 = 5 is a wrong answer. Pleroma translated as "ful number" is a wrong answer. Fullness does not equal full number. Fullness is a static property. It describes a condition of somthing. "Full number" does not describe a condition, but a quantity. If a quantity of gentiles was desired, then a word for quantity would have been included in the text. The greek word for number is not in the text and it is not implied by the context.

Twice in chapt 11, the idea of provokng the remaining unbelieving Israelites to Jealousy through the gospel being recieved by the nations is applied. These are an application of Rom 10:19 where, quoting Moses, it is said that Israelites would be provoked to jealousy by them that are no people....(believing gentiles) In 11:25, Paul is describing the components of Moses's prophecy as a 'mystery' saying that part of the unbelieving Israelites have been 'hardened' until the gentiles beginning with Cornelius have recieved the fullness of the Holy Spirit. The interpretation using "full number" sticks out like a sore thumb against the context and flow of the rest of the passage.

It is contextual interpretation and inductive research that drives exegesis. It is the very context of Rom 9-11 that defeats the "full number" interpretation; not my greek expertice. But it certainly helps that the concept of the word "number" is not found in the word pleroma nor is the word for number itself found in the text of Rom 11:25.

A word is partly interpreted by it's context, and in it's context, pleroma is not talking of a full number of Gentiles to "come in".

I didnt' think you'd be willing to do a root word study either. Those are for responsible seekers of the truth, not repeaters of what someone else says.

There is no reason to reply if you marginalize your own views beyond any real dialogue.

I didn't think youi'd be able to continue discussion on those passages in Daniel. The truth is so very evident that any further discussion would expose yourself as a denier of truth and a proponent of false doctrine. If you think I'm wrong, then continue the discussion. The question stands: Where in Daniel 7 is it said that a genetic or religious group of jews will once again be restored as a favored people after the kingdom is given to the saints of the most high (of all peoples [including jews], nations, languages) forever and ever?

If you think I'm wrong on Rom 9-11, then answer why Paul is so full of remorse for his bretheren and why he wishes that they would be saved, if you think that he says later that "all Israel will be saved".

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

All these responses together are saying that you view the lexicons or dictionaries that you have chosen to use in your response as "infallible", when the dictionaries themselves use the interpreters added words in their definitions.

No Notrash, you just don't get it.

You aren't responding to my points and arguments, you are just pontificating whatever you want to say.

Because you continue to claim you know more than the real experts in Greek - the Greek scholars - you have marginalized your own views. So none of your arguments can be taken seriously.



LDG

 

[Notrash]

No Notrash, you just don't get it.

You aren't responding to my points and arguments, you are just pontificating whatever you want to say.

Because you continue to claim you know more than the real experts in Greek - the Greek scholars - you have marginalized your own views. So none of your arguments can be taken seriously.
LDG

When I asked you to do a word study, I was meaning a contextual definition of its' various usage in the New testament. I was also asking you to due a lexiconical search to find out if any of the words translated 'number' were anywhere near vs 25 or if pleroma had any connections to the root words for any word translated number. There is none. Thus, by doing my own research apart from the dictionary definitions, I have not marginalized my views as you say. You must have misunderstood what the research I was asking you to do.

Your a very good follower and sheep. Keep up the good work. Don't think for yourself, you might injure yourself. Dont' trust your own reasoning ability that God created in you. Trust all the "greek scholars' who use and rely on each others works. They define a word 16 of 17 times in a common way, but who feel compelled to define the exact same spelling of the word differently the 17th time.


I do not claim to "know more" than "greek experts" about greek. I do claim unbiased and inductive research and I do claim to have access to the mind of the Sprit and to be a Spiritual man, although imperfect and weak. The same cannot be said about all "greek scholars". Horst and Westcott would be prime examples as they were members of occultic groups, but were still "greek scholars". The knowledge of the men, the Spirit and motives of men, and the character of the men are different things. And that statement does not mean that I think that every "greek scholar" who translates Pleroma as "full number" has questionable character, but possibly questionable research or exposition skills or boldness or attentiveness to detail.

They do not say how they come upon the idea of 'full number", but only list it as a definition when referring to Rom 11:25. The word in the greek in vs 25 is spelled the EXACT SAME SPELLING as it is in vs 12. There are no adjunctive endings to indicate a 'number'.

Verse 12. Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Just so we dont' think that this fullness can also refer to "full number" in verse 12; we take note Paul repeats the ideas of verse 12 using different words in vs 15.

15, For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?

The greek experts definition of pleroma as 'full number' is not from root words, but from their perspective or their defining of the word by their taught contextual understanding of Rom 11:25. Strongs also defines it thus; but they also define it as full number only in Rom 11:25.

Please quote the rest of my response and not just the opening sentence. The thoughts I have about this are not irrational but logical. But you are being irrational and illogical by clinging to a interpretation of a verse (Rom 11:25) that is completely out of context of the rest of the surrounding verses, paragraphs and chapters and their intended meanings.

For example, what meaning do vs 30 and 31 have apart from Rom 10:19 and the 'fullness' of the gentiles in 11:25 referring to Holy Spirit fullness.

30. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may (present tense, 55 AD) obtain mercy.

What would these words above have to do with Israel being set aside until a time 2000 yrs in the future when it would be restored? It has nothing to do with it. Paul is talking to Roman christians in a letter dated about 55 AD. In it he states that they obtained mercy through the jews unbelief, (the confirmation of Christ , the crucifiction of christ and rejection of the gospel), but that they (jews) may [yet] obtain mercy. (comare the verses in chapter 9 that talk about God's mercy to the elect of "not only the jews, but of the nations also).

The summary of vss 30,31 is a direct reference to the faith invoking and thought provoking jealousy of Rom 11;11 and then also Rom 11:25

11. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Now lets see Rom 11:25 right besides it.
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles (nations) be come in.

AND Rom 10:19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you.

In chapt 10, vs 18, Paul confirms that the jews should have known about the gospel going out to all the earth, meaning all peoples and all nations. The gospel was first preached to Jerusalem, then Judea after Stephens stoning, and then aslo to the ends of the earth...where it was recieved.

Some of the blinded jews of 55 AD may now come to the gospel of Christ that is poured out upon all nations due to jealousy of the fullness of Christ that these "gentile believers" have now recieved.

The 'mystery' that Paul repeatedly talks about and then almost apologizes for overemphazing and that he does not want them to be ignorant of Is the mystery of Moses's prophecies Rom 10;19. And that being summarized in Rom 11:25 and 11:30,31. Even though the Gospel has been recieved by the nations, it does not mean that Israelites are cut off from recieving Christ, but some who rejected Christ when he was preached in Jerusalem and Judea will yet and now (55 AD) recieve him due to being provoked to jealousy of the Spiritual "fullness, wholeness, and completeness" of those of other nations who have recieved Christ.

For he has now counted all (including jews) as disobedient that he might have mercy on all nations according to his election as described in chapter 9.

EDIT: this interpretation of 'pleroma' as 'full number' could be justified if the steps the lexicon writers took to come to that interpretation were shown and defended. As it is, the lexicons seem to add the definition to support that interpretation. Even Wikipedia recongizes a 'spiritual fullness' aspect of the word.