Romans 11:26?

[Old Timer]

Because they don't want to learn. They are afraid of what they will learn. They are in churches full of people who insult instead of learn, or who despise instead of learn. They don't have the master's level language and history background that some of us have, so they call it "gibberish" to cope with it.

Well, I've learned about all I can from you in 3 seconds..

DofJ

Next...

 

[Interplanner]

OK, so summarize Lk 21:20-24 for us.

 

[Old Timer]

OK, so summarize Lk 21:20-24 for us.

DofJ...

 

[random person]

Back to my original point (despite the fact there is no other name under heaven by which man may be saved whether Jew or Gentile),

What do Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists believe:

Under the 7 year reinstitution of the Old Covenant economy also called the Great Tribulation:

What will it fulfill:

A) Romans 11:26?

B) Zechariah 13:7-9?

Or are you folks so blinded and deceived you can't see the contradiction within your own eschatology?

You can't have a dual fulfillment here!

 

[Old Timer]

I'm sure it was about the DofJ...

 

[random person]

I'm sure it was about the DofJ...

To quote Hamlet... to be or not to be?

Is all of Israel SAVED after the Rapture or is 2/3s of Israel DESTROYED after the Rapture?

And sent into captivity for a FOURTH TIME... LUKE 21:24

That is the question!

You see, we preterist believe Luke 21:24 prophecied the third captivity, the Roman captivity of 70 AD.

Captivity Number One: Assyria 732/740 BCE

Captivity Number Two: Babylon 597-582 BCE

Captivity Number Three: Rome 70 AD

Captivity Number Four: ???? AD (of a secular non-convenantal State of Israel)

You futurist believe Luke 21:24 remains to be fulfilled, the words of Christ "this generation" spans nearly two millennia into the future. What did that mean to His 1st Century audience? What relevance did that hold for them? Not only would they not receive an earthly kingdom with an earthly messiah in the first century but that they would be sent into captivity for 2 millennia atop of that? *eyes begin to roll*

*Actually Jews had opportunities to return to the Holy Land through out periods in the last 2 millennia but consequently Palestine became an utter backwater world, compared to the prosperity and educational institutions offered elsewhere in Iraq, North Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Did He ever discuss with them that national Israel would not exist again for nearly 2 millennia after His ascension? NO not according to the Gospels or the rest of the New Testament!

 

[Interplanner]

He sort of severed the connection by saying "It is not for you to know" in Acts 1. I think that allows for the new conception to form.

 

[Danoh]

You can't undo natural branches any more than you can undo your ancestry. So the lopping off is the believers who stand (or don't) by faith. If it is ancestry then all Christians have to high-tail it to Israel and become citizens. Paul was talking about those who believe as the original olive tree, not Israel. Cultivated, yes, but the tree is never the nation or descendancy of Israel.

In a sense it is ancestry - spritual ancestry - by virtue of the fact, that they which are of faith" - in other words, just as "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" - "the same are the children of Abraham," Gal. 3:6, 7.

We're "in Christ" placed in Him "by the Spirit," 1 Cor. 12:13, the moment we believe, Gal. 3:1-3.

We're in Abraham's seed, "which is Christ," Gal. 3:16, Christ is "our citizenship... with the saints..."

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, ancestry in spirit is fine; aka, the "hall of faith" in Heb 11. But not genetically. The genetics get off to a rocky start as you can see from two important facts back there:
1, Abraham was Persian
2, Isaac was not conceived naturally, normally. Birth was normal but not conception. It's sort of an emphatic statement right off the bat that there is not going to be a descendancy. So quite a bit of attention is put into this in Rom 4, 9 and Gal 3: that it is not the natural children who are God's children, but those of the promise. And illustrations of exceptions to descendancy in Rom 9. It was difficult for Judaism to sort this out but very necessary to clear up the promises to Abraham and Israel, now fulfilled through the credited righteousness of Christ.

 

[KrAZeD]

2, Isaac was not conceived naturally, normally. Birth was normal but not conception.

Really, how so? Was abraham not promised a son? Did God not tell him Ishmael was not the fulfillment?

Isaac's conception was normal- the exact same as every child ever made-save one our LORDS. Abraham copulated with Sarah, Abrahams seed joined Sarah's egg, when God opened her womb.

Their is/was nothing said or done in a forceful or definite way (emphatic) to hint at not having a descendancy- Abraham was promised to become a father of many nations, which meant numerous descendants.

Gen 17

 

[Danoh]

Random, I am Mid-Acts in my Dispensational Hermeneutic [the church, or assembly, which is Christ's Body began with its first Body member: the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 1:16] Jesus' "this generation" was interrupted as to the ticking of its Prophetic clock, with the Mystery revealed to and through.a new, unexpected Apostle - of the Gentiles: Paul - which TEMPORARY interruption, God had planned."since before the world began."

In this said "this generation" is in abeyance much like an interruption in a basketball game's clock. Time outside it goes on, you get up, do one thing or another during said interruption, and when the game's clock resumes its ticking, it takes up where things were when said clock was paused.

Where was Christ just before He TEMPORARILY interrupted ISRAEL'S Prophesied destiny? Where Stephen saw Him - "STANDING at the right hand of God" making ready to move things towards making His "enemies His footstool," ISRAEL having joined the world's rebellion " against the Lord and His Christ," the very warning in Acts 4:26, that Israel is depicted failing to heed in Acts 7:51.

 

[Interplanner]

But if you look at Eph 3:6 close, you see the grammar is not on the Gospel or the apostle's ministry as the mystery. Nor Rom 16. Rather it is that the Gospel is the access to the blessed people of God through faith. The Gentiles recieve Israel's promises and membership through it. This is based on the following underlying beliefs:

1, the OT is clear that the nations would be blessed and even that there is no normal descendancy back at the beginning that is favored or blessed in itself. Abraham was Persian and Isaac was not born by normal conception. A rocky start for descendancy claims! But Paul says the descendancy was not the ordianry kind anyway; it was all those who believed.

2, the Gospel is clear enough back in the OT as well. Abraham was credited righteousness. This has to do with all the usual questions of sin, righteousness, judgement, grace, justification from sin, debt, atonement, etc. When the Law is given, look how many terms are just assumed to be understood! Propitiation, atonement, sin, debt, etc.

What Judaism missed--what was a mystery to those in Judaism--was that the Gospel would be the access to the people of God and to blessing. Judaism said it was through observing the law. By being through the Gospel it was totally transcultural. This drove love for all men, Paul says, because "all were dead" (2 Cor 5).

As for the stopclock idea, it can't be used. Judaism supposed it was in a stopclock situation and replaced the promise with the law, Gal 3:17, but this was a misconception. As was its view of the descendancy. The mission of the Gospel was planned all along. it is the "raised fallen tent of David" in Amos 9 (Acts 15) known for long ages to have been the plan.

Look at it this way: Israel did not reject Jesus had he wanted to be king (Jn 6). It rejected Jesus because he didn't want to be king, and in fact, transposed the idea of being king to what it meant in the Gospel. It was his purpose as atoning sacrifice that maddened them.

 

[KrAZeD]

1, the OT is clear that the nations would be blessed and even that there is no normal descendancy back at the beginning that is favored or blessed in itself. Abraham was Persian and Isaac was not born by normal conception. A rocky start for descendancy claims! But Paul says the descendancy was not the ordianry kind anyway; it was all those who believed.

All your points fall on death ears with your assertion that Isaac was not born by normal conception.

Gen 25:21; 29:31; 30:22
Judges 13:2-3
Hebrews 11:11
Luke 1:13

I guess all those references to The Lord opening a womb means each one was born by irregular conceptions as well.

 

[Interplanner]

Does enabled in Heb 11 (the one that matters most to me because it is the apostles) have to mean regenerated sperm production? Did it mean that for Joseph in Lk 1? What I don't find is 'he went into her' 'he knew his wife' 'he lay with his wife' as is found any other time normal conception is mentioned. Isaac was not a natural child as was the other child. In Gal 4:23, he is not "born" the ordinary way, but that is stretching the word "born" to mean conceive, because there was no auto-delivery. Or stork!

Regardless, the point of Rom 9 is to say that descendancy was not as perfect as a person might think. I have heard people who refer to Abraham as a Hebrew already due to a grandfather's location in Heber in Persia, but I can't confirm that when there was a Hebron in Judea. And Abraham did come from the Persia area.

 

[riverrat]

But if you look at Eph 3:6 close, you see the grammar is not on the Gospel or the apostle's ministry as the mystery. Nor Rom 16. Rather it is that the Gospel is the access to the blessed people of God through faith. The Gentiles recieve Israel's promises and membership through it. This is based on the following underlying beliefs:

1, the OT is clear that the nations would be blessed and even that there is no normal descendancy back at the beginning that is favored or blessed in itself. Abraham was Persian and Isaac was not born by normal conception. A rocky start for descendancy claims! But Paul says the descendancy was not the ordianry kind anyway; it was all those who believed.

2, the Gospel is clear enough back in the OT as well. Abraham was credited righteousness. This has to do with all the usual questions of sin, righteousness, judgement, grace, justification from sin, debt, atonement, etc. When the Law is given, look how many terms are just assumed to be understood! Propitiation, atonement, sin, debt, etc.

What Judaism missed--what was a mystery to those in Judaism--was that the Gospel would be the access to the people of God and to blessing. Judaism said it was through observing the law. By being through the Gospel it was totally transcultural. This drove love for all men, Paul says, because "all were dead" (2 Cor 5).

As for the stopclock idea, it can't be used. Judaism supposed it was in a stopclock situation and replaced the promise with the law, Gal 3:17, but this was a misconception. As was its view of the descendancy. The mission of the Gospel was planned all along. it is the "raised fallen tent of David" in Amos 9 (Acts 15) known for long ages to have been the plan.

Look at it this way: Israel did not reject Jesus had he wanted to be king (Jn 6). It rejected Jesus because he didn't want to be king, and in fact, transposed the idea of being king to what it meant in the Gospel. It was his purpose as atoning sacrifice that maddened them.

The gospel of the grace of God was a secret until God revealed it to Paul.

 

[Interplanner]

Krazed, only,
why does Gen 25:1 mean anything at all? Notice the NIV grammatical note: "had taken." These things are not necessarily chronological like the ultra-precise book of Rev (joke).

Gen 29:1 is even worse. Same with 30:22.

I noticed your comment about irregular conceptions, reading again. Well, yes, a menopausal womb is irregular if it conceives! So is an azoospermia male.

Once again in Judges 13, there is no declaration confirming intercourse after the announcement.

 

[riverrat]

Krazed, only,
why does Gen 25:1 mean anything at all? Notice the NIV grammatical note: "had taken." These things are not necessarily chronological like the ultra-precise book of Rev (joke).

Gen 29:1 is even worse. Same with 30:22.

I noticed your comment about irregular conceptions, reading again. Well, yes, a menopausal womb is irregular if it conceives! So is an azoospermia male.

Once again in Judges 13, there is no declaration confirming intercourse after the announcement.

The gospel of the grace of God was a secret until God revealed it to Paul.

 

[KrAZeD]

Forgive me gen 25:1; 29:1 was not correct- gen 25:21; 29:31 were the intended verses.

The rest were correct. It is intended to show that it's Gods choosing for those whose wombs he opens and shuts, and at his choosing.

If your stance is that because Sarah's womb was closed and opened and that equates to Isaac being born through non normal conception procedures, then the other references mean those children were born through non standard conception practices as well.

While we both speculate Sarah went through menopause- their is no clear proof. Only that she was old in age, and past normal child bearing age. I can easily deduce that she was a very rare occurance of not entering menopause till after Isaac. Sorry theirs zero indicators that Abraham was low on "seed". Remember he copulated with Hagar and ishmael was born, he wasn't the issue. Also keep in mind- how old people got prior to the flood, and were still producing offspring.

And I'm sorry if your attempting to claim Isaac was born of some unnatural means as in God placed him in Sarah's womb without the need through copulation, all because Abraham didn't "know" Sarah at that time.......

A little logic would indicate he had already known her many times- hence they knew SHE was barren. Their was zero need to re-establish the fact of them "knowing" each other.

Though if you want a definitive moment of them creating Isaac- gen18:11 gives the time frame of within 1 year. And gen 21:2 clearly states she became pregnant. Only way to become pregnant is through "knowing" the other -excluding Mary.

 

[Interplanner]

If you compare the Luke account, what proof is there of intercourse even between Zech and Elisabeth?

Yes, there is a time frame, a promise of conception, but the usual language is not there. (From one of the things you said it sounded like you thought a man "knowing" a wife only referred to the initial time; there are examples of subsequent ones.). They would have had to have a current encounter and none is mentioned, nor in the parents of Judges case, and its a curiosity.

The question to me would be closer to: is the profile of Isaac large enough to warrant a completely miraculous conception? Ie, one that is apart from either male or female fertility? I think so. It would underscore that the the "people" God is creating is not a descendancy, which became a misconception (no pun intended) that Paul had to clear up in Rom 4, 9, Gal 4.

It is also a huge contrast to the other end of the spectrum which happened in Gen 6 of 'sons of God' going into 'daughters of men' apparently resulting in some pretty awful people, I think. Instead God was providing both Isaac and John (?) and definitely Jesus directly.

Contrast both with Gen 4:1. The translation is actually that Eve thought she had birthed the God-Man. Or "I have brought forth the LORD-man who will help us" or "I have given birth to the man with the help of the LORD" referring back to Gen 3:15 who would crush the serpent. A little early but definitely full of anticipation. Is it because her husband attributed to her the power of life to overcome what had happened (3:20), and her seeds' power against the serpent's?

Also, a little hard to put the younger women stories in the same category. Every younger woman does not conceive every time. With Sarah and Elizabeth we are talking about people declared to be menopausal, and put in the same category as Mary as far as how they conceived.

Even with some indication of Abraham having later children, if it was later, if I follow the commentary of Paul, that the "seed" that was coming was not going to be produced in the normal way. Rom 4:19 declares his fertility as good as dead, which didn't matter. Granted, its an odd overlap, but Paul does it twice: puts Isaac's conception in with the incoming nations through faith.

 

[KrAZeD]

Rom 4:19 declares his fertility as good as dead, which didn't matter.

19 And being not weak in faith, he considered NOT his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

Sorry what I gather from verse 19 is abraham believed, despite his and Sarah's age they were still capable of having children. The usage of the word "not" and "neither yet" is what creates that understanding of the verse. He believed capable because God promised them it would happen.

....... Eve thought she had birthed the God-Man...... A little early but definitely full of anticipation.

Agree with full of anticipation. Though it's also understood she like so many of us, assume God works immediately when he makes a promise. We forget God works according to his schedule and timeline, not ours.

If you compare the Luke account, what proof is there of intercourse even between Zech and Elisabeth?

I'd wager Common sense,with a little bit of rational logic of how babies are produced.

Luke 1:23-24 she conceived when he came home. As well as v 13 says "bare thee a son" indicating it was his, and from him.

They would have had to have a current encounter and none is mentioned, nor in the parents of Judges case, and its a curiosity

We can agree that the bible does not list every time a man "knew" his wife and she became pregnant. This is evident and crystal clear with the major omission of daughter genealogies. However because of the omission of Abraham knowing Sarah we don't need to go astray and attempt to deduce that Isaac was conceived by any other means than natural between a male and female.

With zech and Elisabeth we do see something different, John was conceived with the Holy Ghost already part of him prior his birth. But he like Isaac still came from mans seed.

Also, a little hard to put the younger women stories in the same category. Every younger woman does not conceive every time. With Sarah and Elizabeth we are talking about people declared to be menopausal, and put in the same category as Mary as far as how they conceived.

Not so fast, with Sarai we just have to follow a few stories that point to something strange about her prior to Gods fulfillment of that promise.

First is the length of time from the flood to their existence. While time had passed and man's longevity had succumbed from 400+yrs of life, they were still living fairly long. Isaac 180years, Jacob 147 years, terah 205 years(130 years when abraham was born). Meaning slow declining body functions.

Second was her lack of appearing to age or slow aging- deduced from understanding he and her were old, however he feared he would get killed so they could take Sarah as their wife,why? You wouldn't kill a man to steal his wife if she looked like she was unable to produce offspring (post menopause). Gen 20; 12:11-20.

Which makes it easier to understand that her womb was closed by Gods choice, and when he was ready he opened it, allowing Abraham and Sarah to naturally conceive because she was capable of having children all along, just God wasn't ready for her too.

With Elisabeth, I'd agree with only that God provided an exceptional means for that conception, but again normal as in mans seed and a woman's egg.

Mary is completely different and the only one I'll agree was a divine intervention of conception. She became pregnant through the lack of a physical mans seed. No other woman or person born except Jesus can make that claim.

Yes, Sarah and Elisabeth were allowed to become pregnant when they thought they were to old. However, just because God allowed their body to have an egg ready at his choosing is not the same as him allowing Mary to conceive without seed from a man. Mary required something outside normal means, Sarah and Elisabeth were granted blessings through normal means, albeit old age but still normal processes. Wether or not you can grasp this being different or not I guess is the issue.

Even with some indication of Abraham having later children, if it was later, if I follow the commentary of Paul, that the "seed" that was coming was not going to be produced in the normal way.

Your right, abraham couldn't just go and create a son, he had to wait until God was ready to allow it. So it was not normal in only that regard though.

Gen 25:1-2 he remarries and has 6 others. Making his total sons 8, assuming he had no daughters as well.

And food for thought, while his seed will number the stars can get used as spiritual, just off of the numbers his 8 sons reproducing descendants for 3-4kyears, that literally can fulfill that promise physically as well. Though for more clarification 1 son has 2 sons who then have 2 sons each who then each have 2 sons, so forth and so forth.