Romans 11:26?

[Interplanner]

One reason I looked for the expressions about having intercourse was because, of all OT stories, these are the ones where it would matter! And it's not there. Does it really matter in Gen 4:1 or 17? Yet, here is an account where a positive statement would really matter and it's not there. Cp the detail at Mt 1:25.

Taking me back to the apostle's interp in Rom 4, 9, Gal 4. Paul's language is not biologically correct ("born" in Gal 4:23 means conceived); but what matters to him is what this says to Judaism and its misconceptions. He is trying to establish God's direct creation of a people apart from natural descendancy; that it was there all along. What better place to put this than Abraham's first child? It makes it as much a statement as his not being circumcised at the time of the promise that results in justification from his sins. Not to mention before the Law.

I do see how Lk 1:24 can be seen as a proof, thanks. I just expected positive indication, again cp. Mt 1:25. Or Is 8:3.

The indication from Paul is that Sarah was too old to conceive. Otherwise there is no story to it.

It sounds like you know the OT enough to know that the status of virgin is a debate in Is 7. If there is a parallel to Christ, then that was a virgin conception direct from God as well. If not, then it probably doesn't mean virgin, as it is elsewhere translated young woman or maiden. If you think Christ's was the only virgin birth then, there is even more reason to not translate Is 7 as virgin, etc. Because what would be the "sign" of a virgin conceiving? That happens all the time. (Again notice the positive detail about intercourse where it matters: 8:3).

 

[KrAZeD]

Theirs several ways that people have outlined the significance of Jesus needing to G born through a virgin. The ones we can focus on are, his divinity deriving from before he came into Mary's womb and, the avoidance of "mans" curse through mans seed.

Though ultimately for our discussions sake it's because all offspring were conceived through "normal" means- natural copulation. The usage of "virgin" indicates no outside sourced seed. Which is why "new" translations utilizing young woman instead are just horribly deceiving of the truth. Their attempting to rob the divinity of the emaculate conception.

Isaiah 7:14 does prophesize the birth of Jesus, and only Jesus. 7:16 creates the break in future (Jesus birth) and the capture of both kingdoms (north and south "Israel"). The passage was not iterating another person being born without a mans seed.

Now for abraham, I'll address the point this way this time. If it wasn't his actual seed used and Sarah's actual egg- then how is it their "son". They were both promised a son, and were told Ishmael would not count towards fulfillment. The only way God could fulfill was to allow a "normal" copulation between Sarah and Abraham.

but what matters to him is what this says to Judaism and its misconceptions. He is trying to establish God's direct creation of a people apart from natural descendancy; that it was there all along.

Would you clarify this a bit more please. I don't want to respond with the wrong assumptions of your intent. Also not to stir up a hornets nest but your giving credit to a "2 people" belief here as well.

What better place to put this than Abraham's first child? It makes it as much a statement as his not being circumcised at the time of the promise that results in justification from his sins. Not to mention before the Law.

Not positive here either, though I'm thinking you meant to say his second child- Isaac.

 

[Interplanner]

Paul would not be giving credence to a 2 people belief there, but clarifying that there is only one he is counting, and one he is not counting. I believe that Rom 4, 9 and Gal 3 show that he was correcting the error that the physical descendancy ever mattered as far as the promise of the Gospel goes, and that was justification from sins, and that was the only promise that matters anymore. Note the silence of the NT about any clear remarks about what purpose the land has anymore. Righteousness by faith was the promise; it is available to all no matter their background; it is proven available by the resurrection (Acts 13; Rom 4); it brings the Spirit of God with it, and its fruits; the natural children are not counted as God's children, Rom 9.

re 1st child. They were only counting Sarah's. A slave's child would never count the same.

 

[KrAZeD]

the natural children are not counted as God's children, Rom 9.

They were prior to Jesus resurrection, as long as our definition of natural are the children of "Israel" (the literal nation). We can agree that the death brought partial unity amongst all, again.

I believe that Rom 4, 9 and Gal 3 show that he was correcting the error that the physical descendancy ever mattered as far as the promise of the Gospel goes, and that was justification from sins, and that was the only promise that matters anymore.

I'll agree with the overall premise here, just not with the delivery. We have to remember that Gods word doesn't return void. The "promise of the gospel" is everlasting, from the moment he spoke of it until the "Omega". Physical decendancy while unimportant to our salvation, will always have weight to God.

Note the silence of the NT about any clear remarks about what purpose the land has anymore.

This assertion is not entirely true, subjective on ones eschatology views and beliefs. Those who believe in future events and unfulfilled prophecy do see where the NT has events happening in the land of Israel.

 

[Interplanner]

Those three passages are showing that the physical descendancy never did matter. The reason the Gospel is mentioned in connection with the multitude of seed is not because his own posterity is the multitude but because the Gospel of justification is already being declared and enjoyed, and Abraham sees that millions will believe.

Tell me a NT passage that finds the future land of Israel so necessary to anything God is going to do. NT eschatology is either near-future and Judean or distant-future and worldwide. It does not mix things.

 

[Interplanner]

Those three passages are showing that the physical descendancy never did matter. The reason the Gospel is mentioned in connection with the multitude of seed is not because his own posterity is the multitude but because the Gospel of justification is already being declared and enjoyed, and Abraham sees that millions will believe.

Tell me a NT passage that finds the future land of Israel so necessary to anything God is going to do. NT eschatology is either near-future and Judean or distant-future and worldwide. It does not mix things.

 

[KrAZeD]

We can look at the man of sin- who will attempt to exalt himself above God in the place he ought not G. Last I checked that involves a temple, and last I knew Jeresulam housed the prior 2 temples, same with the 3rd. Where do you envision the 2 prophets prophesying at? Lest not forget either, what Holy city is trodden down for 42 months?

Yes, your eschatology is different, I made that clear when I said your comment was not entirely "true" depending on ones beliefs.

And again your comment is too vague. One importance of decendancy is tracking Gods 144k elect, the other providing proof through Jesus bloodline/heritage. Though I'm sure you weren't going here, and were attempting to say regardless of being a Jew or Gentile under salvation we are equal to a degree. An also without decendancy their would G no 2 or 12 tribes.

 

[Interplanner]

the Thess materials are all timestamped as being in the 1st century. once the DofJ is over and earth continues, the Judean specifics don't matter anymore. There are many indications in them and mt 24 etc that the earth would end 'right after' but also that that was up to the Father. It did not.

as EbedM here, among others, has shown about the 144K, it is symbolic of all the believers. That is the same result as Paul saying that the Abrahamic narrative never was about genetic lineage; the multitudinous seed exists by believing. even the pattern of expression in the Rev shows that John often "looked and saw _____ and then comes (the explanation)...." which is remindful of Daniel (imagery, then interp by an angel).

 

[Old Timer]

as EbedM here, among others, has shown about the 144K, it is symbolic of all the believers. That is the same result as Paul saying that the Abrahamic narrative never was about genetic lineage; the multitudinous seed exists by believing. even the pattern of expression in the Rev shows that John often "looked and saw _____ and then comes (the explanation)...." which is remindful of Daniel (imagery, then interp by an angel).

WOW, that's amazing.. so when John sees 144,000 Israelites from each of the twelve mentioned tribes.. that actually decodes to mean a multitude without number from every tribe nation and tongue..

It's amazing to have men like you to tell us that the bible doesn't mean what it says.. you must have studied a long time to know these things..

 

[Interplanner]

Krazed,
the pattern of John and its parallel to Daniel is in many scholar's papers. (It is not original by EbedM). Likewise the literalism in the gospel of John (there are probably 20 examples of Christ correcting Judaism about literalism). There are good books out there on Semitic expressions, exxagerations, "hard sayings," hyperbole, etc.

For ex., "you will not see me until you also sing 'Blessed...'" is not a futurist prediction; it is the condition for that audience, since it had just happened the day before and it was rejected by the leaders of Judaism listening to Jesus. He was being graphic. He was not arbitrarily leaving the intensity of the exchange they were having and speaking about decision-making points that people X000 years in the future would need to know. A view of Jesus doing things like that is amateur and irrational.

 

[Old Timer]

But what is the secret of making 144,000 Israelites from the twelve mentioned tribes become a multitude without number from every tribe nation and tongue?

Is it because you say it's true?

 

[random person]

The 144,000 is the 1st century church in Jerusalem that obeyed Christ, seen the signs, and fled the city before the Romans encircled it and laid the city under siege.

They are the firstfruits... the Christian church began almost exclusively Jewish... remember the Gospel did not begin to be preached to the Gentiles until chapter 10 of Acts.

If 144,000 represented some generation 2-3 millennias into the future... THEY WOULD BE LABELED THE LAST FRUITS!!!!!

No, these aren't the last fruits of the Christian age, but the first fruits of the Christian age.

The first souls won to Christ in the 1st century!

 

[random person]

Back to the question nobody answered?

Upon the rapture of the Church, will all of Israel be saved then? Or will 2/3s of Israel perish in unbelief?

 

[Old Timer]

The 144,000 is the 1st century church in Jerusalem that obeyed Christ, seen the signs, and fled the city before the Romans encircled it and laid the city under siege.

Well at least you didn't fall for the 144,000 Israelites being the multitude from every tribe nation and tongue..

That was a good one..

 

[random person]

Well at least you didn't fall for the 144,000 Israelites being the multitude from every tribe nation and tongue..

That was a good one..

Just remember... its the firstfruits.... not the lastfruits of the Christian era.

The firstfruits of Christianity began in Jerusalem! The lastfruits will be the whole earth upon its end. Because Christianity has spread all over the globe in these modern times.

 

[Old Timer]

Just remember... its the firstfruits.... not the lastfruits of the Christian era.

The firstfruits of Christianity began in Jerusalem! The lastfruits will be the whole earth upon its end. Because Christianity has spread all over the globe in these modern times.

Regardless of the fact that this pertains to the things which shall be hereafter.. It's an obvious fact that the church of God began in Jerusalem and that its very first members were Israelites...

Then we read of Israel being cut off, and their house left desolate.. The situation we continue to see today.. until that coming Day when they shall say blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

 

[KrAZeD]

Back to the question nobody answered?

Upon the rapture of the Church, will all of Israel be saved then? Or will 2/3s of Israel perish in unbelief?

Is their honestly a definitive answer? If they do not repent then their not saved. If they choose the law, their accountable and held to that.

Personally, I believe "all" represents majority of Israel will confess Jesus as Lord, and their savior. They will have the scales of their eyes removed and see their folly all these centuries.

 

[KrAZeD]

Krazed,
the pattern of John and its parallel to Daniel is in many scholar's papers. (It is not original by EbedM). Likewise the literalism in the gospel of John (there are probably 20 examples of Christ correcting Judaism about literalism). There are good books out there on Semitic expressions, exxagerations, "hard sayings," hyperbole, etc.

Their are a lot of good books regarding helping one understand and deciphering of scripture. Their are several good schools as well.

Though ultimately it is the guiding of the Holy Spirit that should clarify scripture. It is up to us to come to Gods word with no opinions and bias and allow him to reveal the truth. It is up to us to compare Gods word with Gods word, and not entirely trust only mans interpretation.

While that does create the scenario we are in with people having beliefs and thoughts that are exact opposites, it's up to the individual to address are they listening to Gods word and trusting it as much as they trust him to follow through with his promise of Salvation through Jesus. For it sadly, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, is us having more faith in "our" understanding of what was meant, than what actually is told, shown, and revealed.

As well as we as Christians should never think we've learned it all, or know it all. We need to strive each day to become more like Jesus, loving, knowing, and Good.

For ex., "you will not see me until you also sing 'Blessed...'" is not a futurist prediction; it is the condition for that audience, since it had just happened the day before and it was rejected by the leaders of Judaism listening to Jesus. He was being graphic.

Jesus was being graphic for whom? Do they still to this day reject him being the messiah? Last I heard, yes they reject him still. While you believe it's not a futurist prophecy the very fact that even unto this very day they reject him, creates a paradox of your view.

He was not arbitrarily leaving the intensity of the exchange they were having and speaking about decision-making points that people X000 years in the future would need to know.

Why was he not literally foretelling of something thousands of years in the future? I respect the Old Testament isn't entirely important with you, but which happened more- a prophecy becoming fulfilled within 10-70 years of it's telling, or a prophecy taking 100+ years to get fulfilled. We can start with one of the first ones if you'd like, gen 3:15. Did Eve need to know about Jesus becoming our savior and Lord? He came thousands of years after her death, we can even do this in reverse if you'd like as well. "In those days of Noa", why would someone need to know of something thousands of years in the past? Short and brief answer- Gods word does not return void. Every jot and tittle has a purpose and we all should heed every bit of it always.

A view of Jesus doing things like that is amateur and irrational.

No. I understand your overall point, I really do, but no. This is again an example of man thinking what Jesus should have done or was suppose to do. We are not in the same "time" as God, nor do we truly "understand" what he does when and why. What we should G able to do is understand theirs a reason and purpose behind what was said and done, and through our earnest prayer, reading, and trust in the word of God, come to a base understanding of what is meant for our understanding. Never doubting our God and Lord are infallible, and the word does not return void. It is us man who are amateur and irrational with our desire to know it all and attempt to rectify the current "worlds" desire to explain what's going on.

Regarding post #68-as explained, that's the subjective to ones eschatology views, your entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine. We both can and should G able to defend them at all times. Graciously, we are allowed to differ since we agree Jesus is Lord and have accepted him as our savior which ultimately is what matters.

 

[KrAZeD]

Just remember... its the firstfruits.... not the lastfruits of the Christian era.

The firstfruits of Christianity began in Jerusalem! The lastfruits will be the whole earth upon its end. Because Christianity has spread all over the globe in these modern times.

While we agree Christianity has spread globally now, what is the deciding factor of when the "first" fruits stop and then become the "last"?

Can it not also get seen that the "first" fruits are all those accepting Jesus as their Lord and savior, and not under the "law"(old) regardless of time in history?

Or the "first" fruits being the ones who are called or present for the "marriage" supper?

I guess either way someone is going to get left out and scratching their head as in why their not first, though accepting of Jesus as Lord and savior.

 

[Interplanner]

Krazed,
when a person finds 20 times that Jesus had to correct the literalism of the Pharisees, it is because he is looking clearly at the word of God not away from it to his own understanding. The object is there and is real. He is merely reporting that it is there. The person who is looking away will probably deny that it is there!

You can find that pattern (as mentioned) in Daniel and in the Rev a lot.